David Sharaz tipped off Lisa Wilkinson about end of Bruce Lehrmann rape trial
Lisa Wilkinson had advance warning Shane Drumgold was about to abandon the Bruce Lehrmann trial - allegedly thanks to a tip off from Brittany Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz.
Lisa Wilkinson had advance knowledge that ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold was about to abandon the Bruce Lehrmann rape trial because of concerns over Brittany Higgins’ mental health - allegedly thanks to a tip off from Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz.
Newly released documents from the Federal Court suggest that on the morning of 1 December 2022, Ms Wilkinson learnt from Mr Sharaz that Mr Drumgold would be bringing the Lehrmann prosecution to an end the following day.
The veteran TV presenter immediately emailed her colleagues at Ten passing on details of the announcement Mr Drumgold would be making - even though the prosecutor had refused that morning to tell Mr Lehrmann’s own lawyer, Steven Whybrow, what he planned to say, according to Mr Whybrow’s evidence to the Sofronoff inquiry.
At 9.30am on the day before the announcement, Mr Drumgold and Mr Whybrow met in the chambers of the Chief Justice, Lucy McCallum, where Mr Drumgold said he had received medical reports from two doctors to the effect that “if Ms Higgins was required to give evidence again, in a retrial, she would die.”
Mr Drumgold said he would make an announcement the next morning discontinuing the prosecution. When Mr Whybrow asked what he intended to say, the chief justice told him that was “really not my concern”, according to Mr Whybrow’s evidence to the Sofronoff inquiry.
Mr Drumgold then said: “Nobody else knows about this decision and I want this news to be, in effect, completely embargoed until I announce it tomorrow,” according to Mr Whybrow.
At 11.07am that morning Ms Wilkinson emailed Ten lawyers and network boss Beverley McGarvey:
“I have just heard, confidentially, from Brittany Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz, that the DPP is making a statement at 10am tomorrow declaring that he has “had advice from two independent medical experts that the life of the complainant in the Bruce Lehrmann case is at serious risk.”
The email goes on to quote the words Mr Drumgold intended to use in declaring the prosecution at an end.
“Whilst the pursuit of justice is vital, the safety of a complainant in a sexual assault matter must be paramount. And so in balancing all factors, it is no longer in the public interest to pursue prosecution at the risk of a complainant’s life and I have filed a notice declining to proceed further. That brings this prosecution to an end.”
Ms Wilkinson then says: “David told me that Brittany is going into hospital today to keep her safe and to escape the media storm this will create.”
With no ongoing risk of interfering with the trial, Ms Wilkinson was keen to have Mr Drumgold put out a statement that “no warning was given for me not to give that fully-approved and legally-cleared Logies speech”.
But the Ten legal team faced a conundrum. As Ten’s senior counsel Tasha Smithies replied to Ms Wilkinson: “Given your discussion with David is confidential, we have no basis to approach the DPP now ie: how do we ‘officially’ know what is going to happen in Court tomorrow?”
It was agreed they would need to wait until after the court hearing to approach Mr Drumgold.
The following day, Mr Drumgold made the announcement about the end of the prosecution, using almost the precise words of Mr Sharaz as stated in Ms Wilkinson’s affidavit -but said nothing about Mr Drumgold’s alleged failure to warn Ms Wilkinson over the Logies speech.
Instead, Mr Drumgold added that he still believed there was “a reasonable prospect of conviction” and praised Ms Higgins for her “bravery, grace and dignity”.
In the final report of the board of inquiry, Walter Sofronoff KC found the comments were improper and should not have been made.
“It was not necessary for Mr Drumgold to express his views on the prospects of conviction at the time of discontinuance,” Mr Sofronoff said. “Nor was it his function to identify himself with the complainant to a degree that he made a public statement of support.”
“His statement that he believed he could get a conviction and his statement of personal support for the person making the allegation of rape gave rise to a reasonable inference that Mr Drumgold was stating his opinion that he thought that Mr Lehrmann was guilty.”
“The presumption of innocence as ‘a component of the machinery that the law has devised to avoid wrongful conviction’, does not cease to have significance once a particular criminal proceeding has been discontinued.”
“Mr Drumgold’s comments were improper. They undermined the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and was a failure in his duty as DPP.”
