Lehrmann sues Ten: Brittany Higgins awarded $2.3m from commonwealth

The multimillion-dollar sum was revealed for the first time in court on Tuesday, with Ms Higgins saying the compensation claim was to make up for 40 years of economic loss.

Brittany Higgins arrives at Federal Court during the defamation case. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

Brittany Higgins has revealed she was paid about $2.3m in taxpayer funds by the Albanese government for failing in its “duty of care” after she was allegedly raped by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House, saying the compensation claim was to make up for 40 years of economic loss due to her inability to work.

The revelation comes as the former Liberal staffer denies attempting to “blow up” Mr Lehrmann’s retrial by making an impassioned speech outside the ACT Supreme Court after his criminal trial was aborted, and defended her decision to be a witness in his defamation proceedings, saying: “I would not let my rapist become a millionaire for being a rapist.”

Mr Lehrmann is suing Network 10 and presenter Lisa Wilkinson over her interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in 2021, detailing accu­sations that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins on March 23, 2019, but not naming him as the alleged attacker. Mr Lehrmann has consistently denied raping Ms Higgins.

Ms Higgins on Tuesday endured her final day of gruelling cross-examination from Mr Lehrmann’s barrister, Steven Whybrow SC, and was grilled over a rumoured multimillion-dollar compensation payout given to her by Labor soon after the party entered government in May last year.

“They came to an agreement that a failure of a duty of care was made, and they did pay me,” she told the court, saying the settlement followed a period of mediation.

Ms Higgins said the gross payment to prevent her bringing a claim for personal injuries was $2.3m but, after taxes and lawyers’ fees, she received $1.9m. “I think it was around 2.3,” she said.

“I think that was the amount and then … taxes, and then the lawyer took some, but I’m not sure what that fee was. I was never focused on that fee, it was only what I received that I cared about.”

Mr Whybrow put to Ms Higgins that she had “made money off being a person who made an allegation of sexual assault”. “That’s true,” she replied.

Mr Whybrow: “And, as you sit there today, there’s never been any finding as to whether or not your allegations are true or not?”

Ms Higgins said the commonwealth had admitted to breaching its duty of care and failing to “go through proper processes”.

“That’s actually why they settled with me,” she said.

Asked whether the payment was made based on her inability to not work for the rest of her life, Ms Higgins responded: “I believe it was 40 years.”

The Federal Court on Tuesday was played, in full, the speech Ms Higgins gave on the steps of the ACT Supreme Court in October last year after Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial had been aborted due to juror misconduct and a retrial had been ordered for February.

In the speech, Ms Higgins gave her reasons for coming forward with her rape allegations, and spoke to the challenges she faced during the trial.

“I was required to tell the truth under oath for over a week in the witness stand and was cross-examined at length. He was afforded the choice of staying silent in court, head down in a notebook, completely detached,” she said in the speech. “He never faced one question in court about his story and the criminal charges.”

Mr Whybrow said Ms Higgins did not believe Mr Lehrmann deserved the presumption of innocence or the right to remain silent in his criminal trial, and suggested her speech was “designed to blow up a retrial”.

“That was because you did not want to risk a jury finding Mr Lehrmann not guilty,” Mr Whybrow said.

Ms Higgins denied his accusations, and said: “I had just gone through a criminal trial. I wasn’t hiding from anyone.”

On December 1 last year, former ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold called off Mr Lehrmann’s retrial due to Ms Higgins’ fragile mental health, saying: “Ms Higgins has faced a level of personal attack that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work.”

Six days later, Ms Higgins tweeted from her hospital bed that she was willing to testify in defamation proceedings brought by Mr Lehrmann.

She replied to the tweet a few months later, saying any further proceedings would be held “in a slightly more favourable court”, which Mr Whybrow inferred was a reference to the lower standard of proof required in civil cases.

Bruce Lehrmann arrives at the Federal Court in Sydney.

Ms Higgins denied assertions that her willingness to testify in Mr Lehrmann’s defamation case was at odds with his criminal retrial being called off due to her poor mental state.

“Even though I was in hospital, the decision not to go ahead wasn’t mine to make,” she said.

“It was the doctors and the DPPs, and I wasn’t in well health and so I had to accept that decision. But I wanted him to know that I would not let my rapist become a millionaire for being a rapist, so I said I would do it, and now I’m here.”

Mr Whybrow questioned why, within three months of the retrial being called off due to her poor mental health, Ms Higgins indicated “a willingness to give evidence in what you call a more favourable court”.

Ms Higgins again said it was not her decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings.

“I put myself through the criminal court once, I was going to keep going,” she said. “Then, when it looked like he wanted to make money off being a rapist, I of course put my hand up and said ‘please put me back in’, and here I am.”

Earlier in her cross-examination on Tuesday, Ms Higgins told the court her fiance, David Sharaz, who was instrumental in landing her interview with The Project, was “holding a grudge” against the Liberal Party at the time she publicly disclosed her alleged rape.

Mr Sharaz was the person who brought Ms Higgins’ story to Ms Wilkinson, and was present for the four hour pre-interview meeting at The Star in Sydney.

When asked by Mr Whybrow whether Mr Sharaz disliked the Coalition in the lead-up to her story going live in the media, Ms Higgins said “yes”.

“He was holding a grudge by that point,” she said.

Ms Higgins explained the grudge was Mr Sharaz being “protective” of her after the alleged rape and confirmed that prior to being told about the alleged incident, Mr Sharaz was politically neutral.

Ms Higgins accepted she was unable to recall how her dress was taken off the night of the alleged rape, and could not conclusively deny she removed it herself.

When Mr Whybrow suggested it was a “possibility” she was the one to take off the garment, Ms Higgins replied: “It’s not something that would ever happen. I don’t know that that’s not true, but I don’t recall, and it just seems … I don’t recall.”

Ms Higgins’ time in the witness box concluded on Tuesday afternoon. Network 10’s truth witnesses are expected to be called throughout the rest of the week.

The trial continues.