The alleged offender, who was not named in the broadcast, was quickly identified as Lehrmann. He was charged with rape, but the case was dropped when a jury was derailed after one member was discovered to have broken the rules. Lehrmann denies the accusations and maintains his innocence.

As the case was subsequently abandoned it makes it more difficult for Ten’s lawyers to convince Federal Court Justice Michael Lee, there is sufficient evidence that the crime was committed.

Because of the serious nature of the allegation the standard of proof is higher than the usual civil one of balance of probabilities and the judge must be “reasonably satisfied” of what happened.

If Ten’s lawyers can’t convince Justice Lee, Lehrmann has won a big round.

Justice Lee has played his cards close to his chest, but he has said he is having trouble believing some of the things put to him during the case, and he questioned the credibility of both Lehrmann’s and Higgins’ evidence. There are, he said, “Various parts of each witness’s evidence (that) simply can’t be accepted”.

To recap: Higgins says she was hopelessly drunk when Lehrmann raped her. Lehrmann says he did some work (after a night on the booze) then left without checking on his colleague who was in the next room. It is, at the very least, strange. But is it believable?

Justice Lee may well be “comfortably satisfied” Lehrmann did enter the room where Higgins was (they had arrived together after a night on the town), but there is insufficient evidence to establish exactly what happened in that room.

Would this mean that Lehrmann would win? Not really.

In such a case, if a defamation is proved the compensation is decided based on the damage done to the plaintiff’s reputation.

In court Lehrmann has been portrayed as a liar, a sleaze, a drug user and a manipulator. He walked into court with what he believed was a Royal Flush. Now his reputation has been flushed down the toilet.

A judge may decide that even if Lehrmann is a sleaze, an unproven allegation of rape damages his reputation.

If he loses he will be financially ruined by his legal costs, and if he wins and receives a small damages payment he will still be sunk if the court orders him to pay costs.

If Channel Ten offered him a reasonable settlement that he refused he will be hit with a staggering legal bill for both sides – a figure sure to be in the millions or tens of millions. And if the judge finds anyone lied under oath then the law of perjury may come into play.

In a previous defamation case, Justice Lee awarded token damages to plaintiffs so that after they paid their legal fees they would probably still be in the red. It was a nifty way of deterring people from wasting the court’s time.

Justice Lee was about to deliver his judgement when a new witness came forward.

The case was reopened to hear claims that in the act of persuading Lehrmann to participate in a Channel Seven interview on their flagship program Spotlight he was provided with giant steaks (meaning they fed their source on pepper sauce) and provided non-therapeutic exotic massages (meaning he provided the good oil in exchange for baby oil).

No doubt the impressive (and at times witty) judge will be looking at statutes and appropriate precedent to provide a watertight judgement.

Perhaps he could take some inspiration by reading the 1970 novel QB V11 by Leon Uris. It is a magnificent courtroom drama set in London’s Queen’s Bench Court number seven.

The book was based on the real case of doctor Wladislaw Dering (a Jew who worked in Auschwitz), who sued Uris over his book Exodus, where a doctor in a concentration camp was portrayed as a vicious sadist.

After a massive case, a jury found Dering had been defamed but his reputation was so stained they awarded him one halfpenny in damages – “the smallest coin in the realm.”

Having slalomed through a slope of credibility issues, unproven allegations, bombshell allegations, videos of smashed golf clubs and outrageous claims, on Monday Justice Lee will deliver his judgement.

It will be the end of a legal circus that has had everything bar the elephants.

John Silvester is a regular columnist.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.