Brittany Higgins case: Questions that must be answered
In the two years since Brittany Higgins alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann, there has been an aborted criminal trial, a public inquiry, compensation payout and defamation suits – but questions remain.
NSW
Don't miss out on the headlines from NSW. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Political shockwaves stemming from the allegation of a rape inside Parliament House are once again reverberating through the highest levels of federal government more than two years after former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins first went public.
Described by legal experts as a “circus soap opera” and “very messy”, the ongoing saga — which has sparked multiple internal reviews, an aborted criminal trial, a public inquiry, a compensation settlement, ongoing civil defamation suits and political controversies — has once again engulfed Canberra.
Senior Labor MPs are now facing scrutiny over their alleged involvement in “weaponising” the rape allegations to damage Scott Morrison’s government, after explosive leaked text messages suggest some MPs likely knew about the allegations before Ms Higgins gave her first interviews in February 2021.
The former Liberal staffer alleged she was raped on a couch inside a parliamentary office in 2019 by then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann, who has categorically denied the claim.
WHO KNEW WHAT WHEN?
Texts leaked to The Australian suggest Ms Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz, was in contact with now-Finance Minister Katy Gallagher four days before the allegations were made public in February, 2021.
But four months later Ms Gallagher denied she was aware of the allegation before it was made public.
“No one had any knowledge. How dare you,” Ms Gallagher said in response to the claim put forward by Coalition Senator Linda Reynolds.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek and PM Anthony Albanese have also been accused of colluding with Ms Higgins in relation to questions put to then-PM Mr Morrison in Question Time, which both have flatly denied.
The politicians were identified by journalist Lisa Wilkinson as “friendly MPs” who could fire questions about the rape allegation, during a five-hour taped planning session with Ms Higgins, Mr Sharaz and The Project producer Angus Llewellyn before they filmed the interview that was broadcast in February, 2021.
In the three months after Ms Higgins’ allegations of sexual assault came to light, Mr Albanese asked 18 questions about Mr Morrison’s handling of the case. Ms Plibersek asked at least a dozen questions over the same period.
Mr Albanese said he did not “take advice” in relation to questions, adding he only met Ms Higgins after her public allegations “on the same day she met Scott Morrison”.
Ms Plibersek said she had not been approached about Question Time.
COMPO CONCERNS
A reported $3m compensation payout made by the Albanese government to Ms Higgins may be referred to the new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) by her former boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, over concerns about the speed and impartiality of the process.
Ms Higgins sued the Commonwealth, Ms Reynolds and Senator Michaelia Cash as her former employers in December, alleging she had experienced negligence, victimisation, sex discrimination and harassment in the wake of her allegation against Mr Lehrmann.
The matter was settled by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus following a one-day mediation.
Ms Reynolds said the payment was finalised in an “unusually swift” manner, which raised “serious questions about how this significant sum of public money was determined and allocated”.
Mr Dreyfus said the decision to settle the claim was “entirely in accordance” with the Legal Services Direction relevant to that kind of case.
Ms Higgins also alleged she was not adequately supported by her employers and discouraged from speaking with police, which her former chief of staff Fiona Brown subsequently denied.
Ms Brown told court she had advised Ms Higgins she would be supported to go to police, and wept as she revealed a message sent from Ms Higgins thanking her for all her help.
BACK INTO LION’S DEN
Bruce Lehrmann has “put himself on trial,” say lawyers acting in defence of defamation claims brought by the former Liberal staffer after criminal proceedings were abandoned.
Juror misconduct ended the criminal trial in October and the charge against Mr Lehrmann was then dropped amid concerns for Ms Higgins’ mental health.
He is now suing the ABC for broadcasting the Press Club address by Grace Tame and Ms Higgins in February last year, and Network Ten over Wilkinson’s interview in 2021.
Justin Quill, partner with major law firm Thomson Geer, who is representing Network 10, said Mr Lehrmann’s defamation suit made him “like a man going back into the lion’s den to retrieve his hat”.
“He has put himself on trial, no doubt he will be mindful of what we’ve just seen in the Ben Roberts-Smith case, and his lawyers will be well able to advise him about that as it’s basically the same legal team,” he said.
Mr Lehrmann last month discontinued a third defamation case against News Corp Australia, publisher of this masthead.
CLAIMS ‘UNTESTED’
Speaking publicly about the allegations made against him for the first time, Mr Lehrmann told Network Seven the assault “simply didn’t happen”.
But he admitted it “didn’t look good” he had given three different reasons as to why he returned to parliament on the night of the incident.
Of the three reasons given: collecting his keys and making notes for work, drinking whiskey, and needing to pick up documents for his boss, Mr Lehrmann has stuck with the first reason, which he also gave police.
Mr Lehrmann also claimed he abruptly left Ms Higgins in the parliamentary office as he noticed six missed calls from his then-girlfriend, but has not explained how he failed to notice them earlier.
Mr Quill said Mr Lehrmann defending his claims in court would be very different to in a TV interview, describing the difference between the two as “chalk and cheese”.
HIGGINS SCRUTINY
Ms Higgins’ accounts of the evening were cross-examined in the aborted trial, with defence bringing some of her recollections into question.
While on the stand she had to walk back an initial claim that she had buried the white cocktail dress she wore on the evening of the alleged assault under her bed for six months, when defence produced a picture of her wearing it only two months later.
“It stayed under my bed for a period of time, I was wrong in saying it was six months,” Higgins said.
The actions of supporters around Ms Higgins are also under scrutiny.
ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates attended the criminal trial alongside Ms Higgins every day, which was criticised publicly and by some police.
In the subsequent inquiry into the trial police conceded Ms Yates had not breached her duties, but her actions are still considered controversial.
POLITICAL WAR-GAMING AND MEDIA ON TRIAL?
After footage from a five-hour pre-interview between Ms Higgins, her partner Mr Sharaz, journalist Lisa Wilkinson and producer Angus Llewellyn emerged showing the group “war-gaming” ways to increase media coverage and political pressure from the allegation.
Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley said there were “many lessons” to be learned from the response of police, legal, media and political authorities, but it was too late to apply them to this situation.
“This case has been turned into a combination circus-soap opera, which there’s no social utility in that,” he said.
“I think plenty of people could look back and think that they might have proceeded more carefully in their public commentary, whether inside parliament or out.”
Mr Bradley said the media should reflect on how it approached the “conflation of a serious criminal issue with politics”.
More Coverage
Originally published as Brittany Higgins case: Questions that must be answered
Rappers’ prison brawl ‘linked’ to drive-by shooting: Police
Police have linked a drive-by shooting to an alleged prison fight between two rappers. CCTV footage from the night of the shooting has been released.
New survey: 90pc of parents demand action on social media
Parents have overwhelmingly backed age limits stopping kids accessing social media until they hit 16, according to a state government survey of more than 21,000 people.