DPP’s Brittany Higgins ‘bravery’ remarks compared to Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies

The DPP’s statement of Brittany Higgins “bravery” has been compared to Lisa Wilkinson’s speech that derailed the trial.

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold’s public statement of Brittany Higgins “bravery” after the prosecution was discontinued has been compared to Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies night speech that derailed the trial.

Former judge Walter Sofronoff, who is leading the board of inquiry, made the observation during the hearings examining the prosecution and trial on Monday.

It followed evidence from defence barrister Steve Whybrow, who said he was particularly concerned about one section of the speech where the DPP praised her bravery.

“And it just struck me, as I was staring at paragraph fifteen, that the last sentence is very similar to what Miss Wilkinson said,’’ Mr Sofronoff observed.

“Yes,’’ Mr Whybrow concurred in agreement.

In the offending paragraph he was referring to, Mr Drumgold praised Ms Higgins after he decided on medical evidence not to continue with a second trial.

“Before concluding, during the investigation and trial, as a sexual assault complainant, Miss Higgins has faced a level of personal attacks that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work,’’ Mr Drumgold said.

Brittany Higgins addresses the media at the National Press Club. Picture: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images

“She has done so with bravery, grace and dignity, and it is my hope that this will now stop, and Miss Higgins will now be able to heal.”

The first trial ended following an allegation of juror misconduct after the jury was discharged without a verdict.

Last week, Mr Drumgold was grilled by the counsel assisting Erin Longbottom over why he did not consider the impact of those remarks on the accused.

“Did you turn your mind to the impact that statement might have on Mr Lehrmann, who was entitled to the presumption of innocence?’’ she asked.

“Possibly not as much as I should have,’’ Mr Drumgold replied.

During his evidence, Mr Whybrow also criticised the Director of Public Shane Drumgold’s evidence that the jury was set to convict.

Unprompted by a question from the counsel assisting, Mr Whybrow mused that his complaint about the DPP’s speech reminded him of the DPP’s claim the jury was set to convict based on his “reading” of the jurors.

“The fact that he still considered that there were reasonable prospects for a conviction...I immediately realised going to be elevated,’’ he said.

“It’s a bit like he’s evidence of an 11-1 jury. Some sort of evidence, or fact that it was a strong case and that Mr Lehrmann was in fact really guilty.”

Given that the basis for discontinuing the trial was in part Ms Higgins being unable to give evidence Mr Whybrow said it was not proper to suggest there was a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Lisa Wilkinson at the 2022 Logies. Picture: Channel 9

“Given she was the only witness that could give evidence of this offence, strictly speaking, he does not have reasonable prospects of obtaining a conviction,’’ Mr Whybrow told the inquiry.

“He did not need to say that.”

Counsel assisting the inquiry Erin Longbottom then reiterated Mr Whybrow’s thoughts on the matter to the inquiry.

“Your client was left in a position where the proceedings had been discontinued?,’’ she said.

“He was entitled to the presumption of innocence. The subject matter of the complaint is now not going to be determined by the Constitution arbiter of fact, that is the jury.

“And am I right to understand against that background, you just said you were concerned that this passage was conveying a suggestion as to his guilt or innocence?”

Mr Whybrow responded “yes” to her summation. He also complained that “paragraph 15 conveyed that he was really guilty.”

At that point, the chairman Walter Sofronoff suggested that if you can’t do both - praise Ms Higgins and respect Mr Lehrmann’s right to the presumption of innocence- “you better not do either.”

“Yes,’’ Mr Whybrow concurred in agreement.

Mr Sofronoff then observed that it was an interesting case because the trial, the prosecution, the charge, “and everything that surrounded it from beginning to end, raises very acutely the conflict that arises in every in many criminal trials and in every sexual offence.”

Lisa Wilkinson and Brittany Higgins.

“In saying truthfully, I think, that Miss Higgins did face a level of personal attack that has not been seen in such a case for over 20 years in the public media and that she has done so with bravery, grace and dignity,’’ he said.

“But if a prosecutor is to say these things, then he also has regard for the conflicting proposition that Mr. Lehrmann is both intents and purposes in the same position.”

Mr Whybrow then also took aim at Ms Higgins decision to publicly speak about her alleged sexual assault.

“Complainants in sexual offences do not have to be identified and do not have to have their name. They do not have to be videoed,’’ he said.

“In this unusual case, Ms Higgins decided to publicly identify herself as an alleged victim of a sexual assault. Which was her right.”