Brittany Higgins returned to the stand to give her final evidence this morning and is now under cross examination from Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team.
The nature of the cross examination today was centred on questioning the accuracy and “truthfulness” of Higgins’ evidence in a criminal trial last year, her evidence in yesterday’s hearing, what she told in media interviews and even in a draft memoir she had intended to write and publish – but never actually did.
Women’s Agenda is covering the Lehrmann v Network Ten defamation trial as it happens, with former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann accusing Lisa Wilkinson and The Project of defamation. The case is in reference to an interview between Wilkinson and Brittany Higgins, who accused Lehrmann of raping her inside Parliament House in March 2019.
Here’s what we learned in today’s proceedings.
Content warning: This article contains references to rape and sexual assault.
Her final evidence
In answering the final questions from Network Ten’s lawyer Dr Matt Collins KC, Higgins told the Federal Court she was “relieved” about Bruce Lehrmann’s position on her allegations – that he was claiming there was no sexual contact between the two of them.
News.com.au journalist Samantha Maiden, who first broke the story of Brittany Higgins’ allegations in February 2021, informed Higgins at the time that Lehrmann intended to deny the allegations. It has since been revealed that that phone conversation was recorded, for Maiden’s “own legal protection”.
Higgins: “I was relieved. I thought that we were going to have this very nuanced debate about consent and alcohol and all this kind of stuff. And I was really shocked and kind of happy at the time that he was saying that nothing had happened. Because to my mind, it was so preposterous.”
The final questioning from Dr Collins also involved discussing Higgins’ employment with Senator Michaelia Cash from October 2019 to July 2021. It was when Higgins terminated her employment with Senator Cash that she reactivated her police complaint.
Cross-examination begins
In the first session of cross examination, conducted by Lehrmann’s lawyer Mr Steve Whybrow SC, Higgins’ evidence given in court under oath, a statutory declaration with Network Ten, as well as her recollection of events in a draft memoir she began writing in 2021, was under scrutiny.
The first to be scrutinised was the statutory declaration, provided to The Project before her interview with Lisa Wilkinson went to air in February 2021.
Whybrow: “Was the contents of it true and correct?”
Higgins: “To the best of my knowledge at the time, that was correct, yes.”
Whybrow: “Is your knowledge getting better over time?”
Higgins: “I wouldn’t say better… because it was so traumatic… before I knew things, but it wasn’t as clear… it’s just not the way memory works.”
Higgins had also provided Network Ten the image of the bruise on her leg. While in the statutory declaration to Network Ten on 10 February 2021 she declared she acquired the bruise by Lehrmann raping her on 22 March 2019, yesterday in court she said she couldn’t be sure where the bruise came from.
Whybrow suggested to Higgins that the image of the bruise was a “recent invention” for the purpose of The Project interview.
Whybrow: “You accept that this was a different answer you gave on 10 February?”
Higgins: “At the time, I believed it was caused by assault, but with hindsight… it was possible it came from another source.”
More questioning over her recollection of events arose in regards to the panic attack she had on the day of Minister Ciobo’s valedictorian speech in Parliament House.
The questioning especially surrounded her ordering of events, which she admitted she couldn’t recall the exact sequencing.
Whybrow: “It’s an example of you altering your narrative as you find out more evidence – do you accept that or not?”
Then Whybrow asked her what exactly triggered the panic attack that she said caused her to miss out on sitting on the parliament floor, which “she would’ve loved”, as per her evidence yesterday.
Whybrow: “Can you tell His Honour what triggered it?”
Higgins: “I don’t know – the rape?”
The book deal
Evidence brought by Lehrmann’s legal team involved a book deal between Higgins and Penguin Random House publishing, which Higgins said she hoped would be kept “private”.
The contract was for a potential memoir for Higgins to write her version of events of the alleged assault and the aftermath.
According to the contract, Higgins would be paid a total of $325,000. The contract, confirmed by Higgins in court today, also indicated a payment of $108,338 had “occurred”.
Whybrow: “Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of these proceedings?”
Higgins: “I declare it now, if I ever actually finish the book, I will donate the two-hundred whatever thousand to charity. I don’t care about the money. Take it as an oath right now. I don’t care about it.”
Whybrow referred to a draft of the book, sent to publishers on 19 April 2021.
He questioned certain writings from Higgins in the draft – again, concerning the order and sequence of events on the night of Friday 22 March 2019.
Whybrow: “You weren’t making up things? You were telling the truth?”
Higgins: “I wasn’t making up things, but this was done April 2021, and I know so much more now that I didn’t know then.”
…
Whybrow: “Are you saying you weren’t being truthful?”
Higgins: “I was incorrect. I’m not saying it wasn’t truthful. I was incorrect.”
Higgins told the court that the draft of the book was “crap”, and the evidence she gave yesterday in court stands.
Going to the media
The cross-examination then turned to The Project interview with Lisa Wilkinson, the main subject matter of the court case.
Several moments from the five hour long conversation with Wilkinson and The Project producer, Angus Llewellyn, were tendered as evidence in court.
One such moment was a recollection she “had at the time” was the security guard calling into the office “repeatedly”, a fact which differed from the evidence she gave in court.
Whybrow: “What’s made you get a new memory?
Higgins: “it’s not a new memory… I was highly traumatised.”
The dress
Questioning then turned to where Higgins’ dress was at the time she was allegedly raped. It was at this point that Higgins became visibly upset.
In a statement to Four Corners, the guard who found Higgins that night, Nikola Anderson, said she found her naked. However, in several other statements, Higgins said the dress was around her waist.
Whybrow asked if it “concerned” Higgins that Anderson’s recollection was different to Higgins’.
Whybrow: “You were concerned that she might say something that would undermine what you said.”
Higgins: “No, I just thought it was pretty… no, I was just upset at the prospect of the person that found me was going to do an interview.”
As Whybrow continued pressing about the dress, Higgins spoke firmly to Whybrow to defend herself.
Higgins: “As I was being raped, it wasn’t my primary concern where my dress was.”
“I was deeply more concerned about the penis in my vagina that I didn’t want than I was about my dress.”
‘My job’s not that important’
The reasoning behind Whybrow’s line of questioning to Higgins became clear in the closing hour of the hearing.
Whybrow suggested to Higgins that she was “concerned” for her job, which is why, as he proposed, she made the allegations.
Whybrow: “You didn’t have sex with anybody that night you passed out drunk in the minister’s personal suite.”
Higgins: “It’s insulting and it’s incorrect. But you’re entitled to your opinion.”
Whybrow furthered his argument by referencing the fact she did not go to the doctors following the alleged sexual assault.
His assertion was she “made up” the fact she went to the doctors, which she told Brown, the police and others, to make her complaint “legitimate”.
Whybrow: “The reason you didn’t go to the doctor… was because you hadn’t actually been sexually assaulted.”
Higgins: “That’s incorrect.”
Higgins told the court that, following her alleged sexual assault, she “wanted to tell people what they wanted to hear” – that she was fine and that she was looking after herself, including going to the doctors for STI screening and a rape kit.
Higgins said her “job is not that important” and she would “never” make up the allegations to save her job, as Whybrow was suggesting.
If you are concerned about your behaviour, or about someone using violence, call Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491.
If you or someone you know is in need of help due to sexual assault or family and domestic violence contact 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732
In an emergency call 000.