Bombshell police dossier of Higgins’ ‘inconsistencies’ raises stakes

Shane Drumgold sensationally claims police tried to sabotage rape case against Bruce Lehrmann by heightening Brittany Higgins’ distress | READ THE FULL DOSSIER

An upset Brittany Higgins outside the Magistrates Court in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Gary Ramage

Shane Drumgold has sensationally claimed investigating police tried to sabotage the rape case against Bruce Lehrmann by heightening Brittany Higgins’ emotional distress in the hope she would be too traumatised to appear as a witness.

The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions’ extraordinary attack on the Australian Federal Police officers was made in an 81-page statement to the Sofronoff inquiry, which has made public an explosive police dossier outlining inconsistencies in Brittany Higgins’ statements about her alleged rape. The police briefs, known as the Moller Reports, have been at the heart of the dispute between the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police. Among the claims in the documents were:

• Ms Higgins said she was “10/10 drunk” but Parliament House CCTV footage showed her interacting with security staff, smiling and laughing, with no signs of being unwell.

• Ms Higgins declined to provide her phone on numerous occasions despite being aware of its importance to the ­investigation.

• Police discovered texts on Ms Higgins’ phone that said “I’m clearing out my phone ahead of police” and “F..k it, if they (AFP) want to play hardball, I’ll cry on The Project again because of this sort of treatment”.

• There were doubts about the provenance of the photos Ms Higgins said she took of a bruise to her leg from an alleged assault.

The police documents also list troubling issues with Mr Lehrmann’s versions, including:

• The version of events did not seem plausible and the suggestion two people entered an office at that time of evening and had no further interaction seemed unlikely.

• He denied having drinks in the office. Notes of Fiona Brown taken at the time showed he conceded he was drinking whiskey and had two glasses while chatting with Ms Higgins.

It was the many allegations of discrepancies in Ms Higgins’ claims that led Mr Drumgold to question whether the AFP had decided early in the investigation not to charge Mr Lehrmann.

In his statement, Mr Drumgold was highly critical of AFP officers over their focus on discrepancies in Ms Higgins’ rape allegations and their concern about her mental health, despite his decision to abandon a retrial over concerns for her health.

He told one colleague the officers were guilty of either “unsophisticated corruption” or “atomic-level stupidity”.

Early in the investigation, Ms Higgins asked ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates to act as a conduit for her in dealing with police. When the AFP conducted a formal interview with Ms Yates, as a “disclosure witness”, Mr Drumgold viewed it as an attempt to stop her shielding Ms Higgins from police. “This heightened my fear that this was an attempt to prevent Ms Yates from insulating Ms Higgins from direct contact with police, in order to increase the emotional distress of Ms Higgins, in the hope that she would not be able to proceed as a witness,” Mr Drumgold said in his statement.

The relationship between the two agencies deteriorated rapidly when police began their investigation of Ms Higgins’ claims.

Mr Drumgold said his fears grew at his first police briefing, which was held with Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman. “Rather than a summary of the relevant evidence … this briefing seemed to be an attempt to demonstrate that the evidence was weak. The presenting officers ­focused heavily on Ms Higgins’ credibility. I recall they described her as ‘evasive’,” he said. “DI Boorman expressed frustration that Ms Higgins had not provided to the investigators her mobile phone when they first asked for access to it, suggesting that if Ms Higgins was honest about the offence, she would have handed over the phone to them.”

-

‘Discrepancies’ from the Moller Reports identified by investigators in statements by Brittany Higgins

INTOXICATION
• Brittany Higgins said Bruce Lehrmann ‘bought her drinks all night’ but CCTV footage did not reflect this, and Lehrmann’s financial records show he spent $16 at The Dock and $40 at 88MPH.
• Higgins said she was ‘10/10 drunk’ but Parliament House CCTV footage showed her interacting with security staff, smiling and laughing, with no signs of being unwell.
• Higgins said she ‘couldn’t walk’ but CCTV footage showed her walking without issue in heels.
• Higgins said she was ‘super-inebriated’ but security staff described her as ‘slightly intoxicated’.
• Higgins said she couldn’t write her name and that Lehrmann signed her in, but a security guard described her as willingly signing her own name. On being shown the sign-in sheet she said: “That’s not my handwriting”.

88MPH BAR
• Higgins told police on 8 April in 2019, two weeks after the alleged rape, that she could not recall the name of the nightclub she went to with Lehrmann, yet days earlier she had told a work colleague it was 88MPH.
• Higgins told The Project she had no romantic actions with Lehrmann at 88MPG but her friend Lauren Gain said they had hands on each other’s legs and were ‘pashing’; she was also observed to be taking selfies of Lehrmann and herself on her phone. She informed police she had photos on her phone of the evening and that she would keep them for police, but never provided them. Note: Lehrmann also denied ‘pashing’ Higgins but ‘concedes that they were close’.

THE SCENE
• Higgins stated that she had her dress up around her waist and the straps were off her shoulders when she woke up during the alleged assault but the female security guard who checked on her that morning in Liberal senator Linda Reynolds’ office states that she was fully naked with the dress on the ground next to her shoes.
• Higgins stated that her head was facing the door to the minister’s office during the incident and when she woke up but the same security guard said Higgins’ head was facing the window with her feet facing the door.
• Higgins stated that she was crying during the incident, but the security guard told police she looked at Higgins during the welfare check and observed a full face of makeup and no signs of crying or distress.
• Higgins states that she ate chocolates and vomited in the bathroom but the cleaner stated he did not have to do anything more than a light clean, saw no stains on the couch and did not observe anything to suggest the bathroom had been used (towels were still in place etc).

HIGGINS’ PHONE
• Higgins decline to provide her phone on numerous occasions despite being made aware of its importance to the investigation.
• Police discovered texts on Higgins’ phone that said ‘I’m clearing out my phone ahead of police’ and ‘F..k it, if they (AFP) want to play hardball, I’ll cry on The Project again because of this sort of treatment.

INJURY TO LEG
• The first disclosure of any injury by Higgins was to The Project in February 2021; ‘no prior mentions’.
• Following examination of Higgins’ phone (not the original phone), the metadata indicates this image of a bruise was taken on April 3, 2019 (11 days after the alleged incident).
• Regarding the digital image of an injury to her right leg that was provided to media outlets, Higgins stated this injury occurred during the assault. This injury appeared to be on the upper right outside thigh. Based on this disclosure, this leg would have been closest to the back of the couch.
• Higgins and a witness both stated that she fell up the steps of 88MPH bar – ‘Potentially her injury as documented in the digital image provided to the media supports this’.
• A physical examination of the couch did not identify any hard surfaces or objects.

* Documents have been edited