Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister lashes ACT’s top prosecutor for allowing the media to ‘destroy’ her client

Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister has lashed the ACT’s top prosecutor for allowing media to “destroy” her client based on inaccurate claims.

Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC has lashed the ACT’s top prosecutor for allowing the media to “destroy” her client based on inaccurate claims he warned her not to deliver her Logies speech.

In a torrid day in the witness box, Ms Chrysanthou cross examined the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold over why he told the ACT Supreme Court that a note of his discussion with the broadcaster was “contemporaneous” when it was not.

In fact, the note was updated after Ms Wilkinson delivered the speech to suggest she was warned not to do so.

He conceded he did not correct the record about this and could have done so.

But he insisted it was an accurate account of the meeting as he remembered it and to his mind a caution was issued that any further publicity could risk a trial delay.

This claim is rejected by Ms Wilkinson and her legal representative who attended the meeting.

Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: Ten

In the wake of the position being put to the ACT Supreme Court that a clear warning was issued, Ms Wilkinson’s barrister said she was subjected to a barrage of misreporting.

She said one of the “ramifications was the utter destruction of my client.”

“Do you accept that you saw at that time that Ms. Wilkinson was destroyed by the media,’’ Ms Chysthanthou said.

“You don’t know that there were front pages on nearly every major newspaper the next day? Criticising Ms. Wilkinson for failure to heed to your warning?”

When Mr Drumgold replied that he did not see the front pages and tried to avoid reading media during a trial, Ms Chrythanthou said “Are you serious?”

“I don’t monitor the media,’’ he replied.

Mr Chrysthanthou then asked him, “you didn’t walk past the newsagent and see big colour photos of my client saying reckless journalism and things for that effect?”

“No,’’ he replied.

“Is that a truthful answer?,’’ she asked.

“I think it is. In cases like this I deliberately stay away from the media,’’ he replied.

During a discussion of whether Ms Wilkinson should have used “the magic words alleged”, the barrister noted Ms Wilkinson did not refer to an alleged rape or the trial.

“The speech doesn’t refer to the offence. So what are you talking about?,’’ Ms Chrysanthou said.

Mr Drumgold repeatedly suggested it was not his job to correct the media.

“I don’t suggest it’s your duty to chase up people who might be about to make dangerous statements, endangering a trial,’’ Chairman of the Inquiry Walter Sofronoff said.

“But would it not be your duty as the DPP and even as a barrister to protect the integrity of imminent court proceedings?

“By telling a witness your opinion is that this would likely endanger the trial by provoking a successful stay application, which it did?”

Mr Drumgold said he never thought charging Ms Wilkinson with contempt was a serious prospect and dismissed this as “Whybrow puff” - a reference to suggesting Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow.

Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Adam Yip

Earlier, Ms Wilkinson unleashed over claims Mr Drumgold issued a specific warning that a planned Logies speech could impact Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial.

Nearly a year after the trial was delayed for months over the fallout, Ms Wilkinson told the inquiry in a written submission an inaccurate account of her discussions with the DPP was presented to the ACT Supreme Court.

“If Mr Drumgold had told me not to give the speech, I would have followed that advice,’’ Ms Wilkinson said.

“If Mr Drumgold had told me that ‘publicity’ posed a risk to the trial, I would have further questioned that issue, especially given the publicity that had already occurred regarding the Logies, and the inherent publicity that could follow from the Logie award nomination irrespective of any speech given by me.”

Her lawyers submit Ms Wilkinson has suffered serious and ongoing reputational harm as a result of the saga.

In a submission to the inquiry, they claim the furore that followed contributed to her quitting as co-host on The Project amid “toxic” media coverage.

Her lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC said Mr Drumgold gave an inaccurate account of his conversation on 15 June 2022 to Chief Justice Lucy McCallum.

“There was no specific warning given to Ms Wilkinson not to give a Logies speech,’’ the submission states.

“And thereafter his repeated failures (despite numerous requests on behalf of Ms Wilkinson) to correct the mistake of fact he caused McCallum CJ to proceed under in vacating the trial – despite subsequently acknowledging to Ms Wilkinson’s then-legal team that the mistake was not Ms Wilkinson’s – resulting in consistent and continued misreporting of his conversation with Ms Wilkinson, and significant harm to her reputation as a responsible journalist who deeply respects the judicial process.”

“Mr Drumgold did not warn Ms Wilkinson not to give a speech if The Project interview won, nor was Ms Wilkinson informed that she could not refer to Brittany Higgins in the speech,’’ the submission states.

“No one in that meeting, or subsequently, gave her any such warning.

“Chief Justice Lucy McCallum’s assessment that Ms Wilkinson was given a ‘clear and appropriate warning’ was factually inaccurate,” the submission states.

Top prosecutor Shane Drumgold. Picture: NCA NewsWire/ Dylan Robinson

The submission states that the allegations made by Ms Higgins were inherently a matter of public interest that attracted substantial media reporting.

“In making this respectful submission to the Inquiry, Ms Wilkinson wishes to ensure that in the ongoing interests of strong public interest journalism – the backbone upon which a strong, fair and democratic society is based – investigative journalists across the country should not be misrepresented by legal officers,’’ the submissions states.

“It was unfair to expect that Australia’s media would not continue to report issues surrounding workplace safety for women in parliamentary workplaces after Mr Lehrmann was charged. The fact of his charge was also inherently a matter of public interest, as was the conduct of his trial,’’ the submissions states.

“The conduct of Mr Drumgold in failing to publicly correct the record in relation to a submission made by him in Court in the matter of R v Lehrmann arises from and is incidental to the general conduct of the prosecution.

“Ms Wilkinson requests that it be investigated and reported on as part of this Inquiry.”

Her statement stands in contrast to the evidence that the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, who told the ACT Supreme Court that if there was any publicity that it could cause a delay to the trial.

Mr Drumgold admitted in his first day of evidence on Monday that he should have provided a more explicit warning to Wilkinson.

“I would accept that I entirely misread the situation,” he said.

“I thought this was somebody telling me they were up for an award for doing an interview … I was not, to my mind, dealing with the real issue.”

Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann. Picture: NCA NewsWire

On Monday, Mr Drumgold was accused of making false statements to trial judge Chief Justice McCallum in a hearing last year over Ms Wilkinson’s Logies speech.

Counsel assisting Erin Longbottom KC accused Mr Drumgold of making a false statement about his discussions with Ms Wilkinson.

“Those statements were false,” Ms Longbottom put to Mr Drumgold. “They were knowingly false.

The former Today show host was gagged from telling her story during the trial and the aftermath to avoid any suggestion that her comments might delay the trial again.

Last year ACT Supreme Court Judge Lucy McCallum slammed Ms Wilkinson and vacated the trial dates after accusing the media of having “obliterated the important distinction between an allegation that remains untested at law and one that has been accepted by a jury giving a true verdict according to the evidence.”

“Notwithstanding that clear and appropriate warning, upon receiving the award Ms Wilkinson gave a speech in which she openly referred to and praised the complainant in the present trial,” Chief Justice McCallum said.

But her submission to the board of inquiry paints a very different story to that outlined in the ACT Supreme Court where she was eviscerated over the speech and the fallout.

Ms Wilkinson met with the DPP Mr Drumgold on June 15, 2022 because she was a Crown witness in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann.

“When I met with Mr Drumgold, I took with me a draft of the speech I had prepared, as I wished to avoid the risk that the speech could impact in any way on the scheduled criminal trial in R v Lehrmann,’’ her submission states.

The Lehrmann trial was aborted in Canberra late last year as a result of jury misconduct. The ACT DPP subsequently dropped the sexual assault charge. Mr Lehmann pleaded not guilty to the charge.