Police note raises claim Briattny Higgins may have been drugged

Brittany Higgins has questioned whether she may have been drugged on the night she was allegedly raped by Bruce Lehrmann, and that she wishes the defamation case had explored this possibility.

Brittany Higgins enters the Federal Court in Sydney to testify in the defamation case of Bruce Lehrmann, Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Swift

Brittany Higgins has questioned whether she may have been drugged on the night she was ­allegedly raped by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House, and that she wishes the Federal Court had explored this possibility ­during Mr Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and presenter Lisa Wilkinson, new court documents have revealed.

The former Liberal staffer also claims the circumstances in which her $2.4m commonwealth payment was “prepared, agreed and executed” had not been explored “in any meaningful way” during proceedings, saying there is “no proper basis” to make adverse findings against her in relation to the compensation package.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyers had ­argued that Ms Higgins made 11 separate representations about her alleged rape in her settlement that were either false or contradicted by her own evidence in the defamation case.

Justice Michael Lee last week invited Ms Higgins to make further submissions to the landmark defamation case in relation to evidence pertaining to her, to avoid any “third party to the proceedings being denied procedural fairness”.

Ms Higgins, in submissions ­released by the court on Tuesday afternoon, said that, if she had been a party to the proceedings, she would have properly interrogated a “master chronology” that features an entry from an AFP ­officer indicating she may have been drugged on the night of the alleged rape.

The entry, from senior officer Leanne Cross, reads: “I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again. (I was referring to info that alleged victim may have been drugged). Paul (Sherring) – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.”

Former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach at the Federal Court in Sydney. Picture: AAP

In her submissions, prepared by her counsel Nicholas Owens SC, Ms Higgins said the potential that she was drugged was “not an issue that has been raised or explored in these proceedings”.

“While there is evidence now that there was ‘info’ that Ms Higgins was drugged, and that the concerns expressed in that note were held, the nature of that ‘info’ and the basis upon which the concerns were held was not explored,” her submissions read.

“In the context of a serious challenge to the honesty and accuracy of Ms Higgins’ account of the events of the night in question, the potential that her perceptive and recollective abilities may have been affected other than by ­alcohol and trauma is an issue that she would have wished to ­explore.”

Mr Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence, and says he never had sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins.

The master chronology was submitted into evidence last week after former Seven Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach provided the court with confidential information from Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial, which he claims the former Liberal staffer provided to the program as part of an exclusive interview.

Mr Lehrmann has denied providing any confidential information to Seven.

Justice Lee emailed parties to the defamation case in March after receiving a submission from Ten that allegations Ms Higgins had “committed a fraud on the common­wealth” should not be adjudi­cated in the case.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyers had argued that Ms Higgins made false representation “for the purposes of securing a life-changing payment” and were a breach of the warranties made by her in the deed. Ms Higgins denies this.

In her response released by the court on Tuesday, Ms Higgins called on the court to be “slow to draw adverse inferences against an incomplete evidentiary background” and criticised Mr Lehrmann’s attempts to undermine her credibility.

In the submissions, Ms Higgins claims she was not cross-examined on the deed she signed with the commonwealth and thus had no opportunity to explain any alleged inconsistencies.

In one case, Ms Higgins had claimed in the deed that Mr Lehrmann directed the taxi in which the pair travelled to Parliament House to stop “without invitation or agreement”, when she had previously given evidence that she “just went along with it”.

Ms Higgins says in her submission the two statements are entirely consistent because “in both versions Mr Lehrmann did not seek the consent of Ms Higgins – he told her what he was doing”.

Ms Higgins submits that, while in the witness box, she exhibited a “preparedness to accept that something she genuinely thought had happened, did not happen in light of objective evidence”.

“In circumstances where (as reflected in the evidence she gave during the trial) she was more ­intoxicated than she ever had been before and during the rape, and where she was highly traumatised after the rape, it is plain that she has done her best to reconstruct what happened to her,” the submissions read. “To the extent that peripheral details of her reconstructed memory were wrong, it does not in any way reflect adversely upon her honesty …”

Ms Higgins claims that no inconsistencies in her events “rise above the level of detail that human memory, and especially the memory of a victim of a traumatic assault, would be expected to exhibit some variance of recall in relation to”. “Once again, in particular where Ms Higgins has always been clear that she was highly affected by alcohol, and incapable of remembering (or even consciously observing) many events, care must be taken to distinguish between inconsistencies that are a product of a (failed) attempt to work out the detail of what happened to her, and (which is denied) dishonest invention,” the submissions read.

The Australian does not suggest Ms Higgins was drugged, only that the concern was raised by the AFP and her legal team claim she would have raised it if she was a party to the case.