Weird whodunit: renovation texts in Brittany Higgins trial

Who was using chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold’s phone to text his builder while Brittany Higgins’ evidence was being heard?

Chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold at the ACT Supreme Court on October 5 last year. Picture: AAP

As if there weren’t already enough bizarre tangents thrown up by the Bruce Lehrmann rape case, now there’s this: who was using chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold’s phone to text his builder while Brittany Higgins’ evidence was being heard?

What’s not in dispute is that someone sent messages from Mr Drumgold’s phone to his builder asking for updates on renovations to his NSW south coast properties while he was in the ACT Supreme Court leading the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann last year.

But in a series of letters emerging from a legal dispute over payment for the renovations, Mr Drumgold, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, appears to suggest that it wasn’t him sending the texts to builder Matthew Thompson while the trial was in session, but his wife.

On October 5 at 10.42am, Mr Thompson received a text message from Mr Drumgold’s phone requesting an update on work at his Batemans Bay property.

“Thanks mate – can you update me on the South St progress,” the text says.

At that moment, according to trial transcripts, the court was watching the police record of ­interview with Ms Higgins.

On October 10 at 12.52pm, Mr Thompson received another text from Mr Drumgold’s phone asking for a completion date as a tenant was due to move in the following week.

“Hey Matt – sorry the Real ­Estate are wanting a date for the new lease – can you confirm 18 October?”

Mr Thompson responded: “Hey Shane just waiting for the stone guy to get back to me he said he’d let me know by the end of the day.”

At that moment, according to the trial transcript, Mr Lehrmann’s police record of interview was being played to the court.

 

Mr Drumgold hired Mr Thompson last May to renovate his two south coast properties, one in Batemans Bay, the other in nearby Surf Beach, but he then complained of defects in both properties.

In December Mr Drumgold, who had already paid $104,087 for work at one property, texted Mr Thompson, saying he would not pay any outstanding money until both jobs had been satisfactorily completed. He later offered a further $5913 “in full discharge of all works”.

Mr Thompson, who says he is owed $33,912 for the work, then hired Canberra lawyer Ben ­Aulich to pursue the matter.

When Mr Aulich pointed out in correspondence that the texts were sent while the court was in session, Mr Drumgold responded by seeming to suggest that it was his wife who had sent the text from his mobile phone.

“I must say, your bizarre theory of simultaneously leading evidence and sending SMS messages is rather confusing, particularly in light of some expertise in the remarkable capacity for Apple products to send and receive SMS from multiple ­devices should a couple happen to jointly manage a property portfolio,” Mr Drumgold wrote in a letter to Mr Aulich on January 18.

He said Mr Aulich’s “thinly veiled allegations of some undefined impropriety” were “misguided”.

Brittany Higgins. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Builder Matthew Thompson. Picture: Rohan Thomson

Mr Aulich responded by asking Mr Drumgold to confirm that he was stating that it was his wife who sent the texts, pointing out that his phone records might be subject to the discovery process or the subject of a subpoena, once proceedings started.

When Mr Drumgold hired his own lawyers, Mr Aulich told them he wanted “clarification on whether (Mr Drumgold) took positive steps to mislead me about the origin and author of the Text Messages”.

“If the statements made by your client in his email of 18 January 2023 referred to above are false and/or misleading it is incumbent on him to correct them and to do so as soon as possible,” Mr Aulich told the lawyers.

In the midst of this legal argy-bargy Mr Aulich noted that the Barrister’s Rules and the Solicitors Conduct Rules prohibit a barrister or solicitor from knowingly making a false statement to the ­opponent and confer a duty to correct any false statement as soon as the practitioner becomes aware of it.

Mr Aulich said that when proceedings were started he would adduce evidence including court transcripts from the Lehrmann trial “showing that your client was not ‘on his feet’, rather evidence of Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann was being played to the jury at the exact time the Text Messages were sent from your client’s ­mobile telephone”.

He observed that Mr Thompson had addressed his comments to “Shane” and this had not been corrected; and that Mr Thompson had never met or discussed the renovations with Mr Drumgold’s wife, Natasha.

Mr Aulich also alleges that ­despite repeatedly asking Mr Drumgold to deal with him and to stop contacting his client directly about this dispute, Mr Drumgold had continued to do so.

Mr Drumgold told The Weekend Australian that he was in “a small civil dispute” with Mr Thompson, who “carried out contracted building works at a South Coast property that it subsequently transpired he was not licenced to carry out, that do not comply with planning requirements or processes and accordingly now constitute unlawful building works.”

Mr Drumgold said: “It appears Mr Thompson and his lawyer Mr Ben Aulich have realised that Mr Thompson has acted unlawfully and in breach of several provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 and the State Environment Planning Policy Codes that has resulted in a significant loss to myself, and their legal position is untenable, so are leveraging from my current profile to use misinformation to argue their case through the media rather than the courts, no doubt in the hope of avoiding the inevitable legal proceedings.”

Mr Drumgold said he would be engaging only through the appropriate legal channels, “and will not be commenting further on this personal matter”.

He did not address specific questions put to him by The Weekend Australian, including whether he texted Mr Thompson while the court was in session; if so, whether that was appropriate; and if not, who did send the messages.

Mr Aulich and Mr Drumgold have a shared history.

 

On December 6 last year – ­before Mr Thompson became his client – Mr Aulich’s law partner, Peter Woodhouse, demanded Mr Drumgold’s resignation and an investigation by the ACT Integrity Commission into the decision to prosecute Mr Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Ms Higgins.

Mr Woodhouse, the managing partner of Aulich lawyers, said an investigation was needed after revelations by The Australian that Australian Federal Police believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Lehrmann but could not stop the DPP from doing so because “there is too much political interference”.

Mr Woodhouse’s defence of the AFP surprised many in Canberra’s cloistered legal world ­because the AFP had earlier charged Mr Aulich with conspiracy to launder.

Mr Aulich has pleaded not guilty in that case. His defence team – led by David Campbell SC, along with Steve Whybrow SC, who acted for Mr Lehrmann in the rape trial – alleges police used ­illegal actions and entrapment in the operation that led to the charges against Mr Aulich.

That case is still before the courts.

Mr Thompson told The Weekend Australian that Mr Drumgold instructed him not to seek development approval for the works on either property because the ­approvals “would take too long”.

Mr Thompson is a licensed builder in the ACT and disputes the allegations in relation to the works.

He said that Mr Drumgold’s refusal to pay the balance owing for his work was “a kick in the guts”.

“I needed that money to ­finance other jobs and now I’ve had to can those other jobs,” Mr Thompson said.

“I can’t take my kids out on weekends because I don’t have the money. It’s stressing me out big time.”

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty at trial and has at all times denied the allegations against him. The DPP has now withdrawn the charges.