Justice Michael Lee best summed up the wisdom of Lehrmann’s decision to sue for defamation after his criminal trial collapsed due to juror misconduct: “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.”

Lehrmann must have known his chances of vindication were slim by the time he arrived at the Federal Court in Sydney on Monday morning, given concessions made by his own legal team and Lee’s comments about his credit during the trial.

He again brought along his silver pen and his notebook, and retreated into them every time Justice Lee denounced his credibility, shoulders high, scribbling furiously while those seated behind craned to see how he was taking the demolition of his character. His account of the events was “an elaborate fancy”, the judge said.

When Lee made adverse findings about the credibility of Higgins and Wilkinson, he sat back and rested his cheek on his hand, with the pen sticking out from his fist.

Because it wasn’t just Lehrmann who was disgraced by this judgement – it was an excoriation of all the protagonists, each of whom at times subjugated the truth of the allegation to their own self-aggrandisement.

While accepting the truth of Higgins’s central allegation that she had been raped by Lehrmann, and sympathising with her attempts to play it down in the immediate aftermath, Lee was troubled by her later conduct.

“The most important aspect of this later conduct, commencing in early 2021, was the way in which Ms Higgins crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her … to choose between her career and seeking justice,” he said.

Wilkinson was also singled out for criticism. She had argued her controversial Logies speech, which delayed Lehrmann’s criminal trial, had been signed off by Ten’s in-house lawyer, Tasha Smithies. But Wilkinson should have known that it ran the risk of derailing the trial and her suggestion that she was somehow “vexed and reticent” and had been forced into making it by her employer “does not ring true at all”, Lee said.

“If she had thought matters through as an experienced journalist, and not as a champion for Higgins, she ought to have known the speech was fraught with danger,” Lee said.

Smithies’ own conduct, both in providing the advice and then standing by it, was “unjustifiable”, he said.

Lee’s witty asides and aphorisms have earned him a reputation as a comedian on social media and a show pony among lawyers.

But in week of momentous events – the mass murder of shoppers at Westfield Bondi Junction, drone strikes launched on Israel – the no-nonsense oath that he swathed through the evidence exposed it for the “omnishambles” that it has been.

By the time Lee finished delivering his reasons, the entire court was lathered in disgrace.

Wilkinson turned from the gawking room and folded into the arms of her barrister, Sue Chrysanthou. Her white suit – the suffragettes’ colour – was crumpled. If this was victory, it looked a little bit like humiliation as well.

But while Lehrmann dashed from the court with his head bowed, refusing to speak, Wilkinson stood on the steps outside and addressed the media.

“Today, the Federal Court has found that I published a true story about a rape in a federal minister’s office at Parliament House in March of 2019,” she said.

“I sincerely hope that this judgment gives strength to women around the country.”

She did not mention the criticisms levelled by the judge. One narrative had been published. A new one was rising.