Table of Contents
Thanks to the dodgy, blatantly biased Canberra legal establishment, alleged juror misconduct, and “fragile mental health” of the complainant, Bruce Lehrmann’s criminal trial for allegedly raping Brittany Higgins was never resolved. After delays and a mistrial, the whole case was dropped by the Canberra DPP (who subsequently came under intense scrutiny for his role, and eventually resigned his post).
Now, the case is being re-run in all but name, as Bruce Lehrmann sues Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation. Network Ten and Wilkinson have elected to defend themselves partially on a “truth” defense. That is, that Lehrmann really did rape Higgins. Higgins is appearing as a witness for the defence.
So far, Higgins’ testimony is going about as well as it did during the criminal trial.
Brittany Higgins has conceded she repeatedly gave incorrect evidence in Bruce Lehrmann’s criminal trial, admitting to inconsistencies in evidence about her state of undress following the alleged rape, how she acquired a large bruise on her leg and the length of a panic attack she had in the Parliament House toilets, as she labelled sections of her draft memoir detailing the alleged incident “crap”.
So, wait, what? She’s calling parts of her own account “crap”?
Well, we certainly know that a great many of her other claims turned out to be not so reliable. From footling stuff like claiming that she took a designer jacket “from a goodwill box” in her boss’ office when no such thing existed, to more serious matters like refusing to hand her phone to police for months, until she’d deleted texts, photos and audio files. Higgins also claimed she was “10/10 drunk” and “couldn’t walk” on the night, but CCTV footage showed her walking in heels without a problem, and security staff described her as “slightly intoxicated”. She also claimed not to be able to write her own name, despite security staff and a sign-in sheet showing otherwise.
More lies and inconsistencies are emerging.
She became upset again when asked about why she lied to police and her ex-boyfriend Ben Dillaway about going to the doctor in days following her alleged assault […]
Ms Higgins said she gave incorrect evidence during the criminal trial about how she got a large bruise on her leg, saying it may have happened when she tripped up the stairs at the 88mph nightclub and not as a result of the rape as she initially claimed.
She denied that a photo of the bruise was “invented” for the sake of The Project interview.
Mr Whybrow questioned Ms Higgins over evidence she gave about a three-hour long panic attack she had in the Parliament House bathrooms in the days following the alleged rape.
“In hindsight, it was not that long, but I did lock myself in the bathroom,” Ms Higgins replied. “It felt like a long time because I was under extreme stress, but three hours wouldn’t be accurate.”
Mr Whybrow: “Well, it was not honest evidence was it?”
Ms Higgins admitted to lying to Wilkinson about Mr Lehrmann removing her underwear on the night of the alleged rape.
The court was played a section of the pre-interview Ms Higgins conducted with Wilkinson and The Project producer Angus Llewelyn, in which Wilkinson is heard asking Ms Higgins if Mr Lehrmann removed her “panties” before he raped her. Ms Higgins said “yes” in response.
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow SC suggested this was a lie, and Ms Higgins agreed.
Yet, she was apparently prepared to publish the lie in her lucrative planned memoir.
One section of the draft, detailing her experience directly after the alleged rape, read: “My near nakedness shocked me. My white dress hung loosely around my midsection like a belt. I tried helplessly to regain the modesty I realised I’d lost. I pulled my dress down and adjusted the straps” […]
The $325,000 book deal was acquired by Ms Higgins with the help of columnist Peter FitzSimons in March 2021, and the court heard Ms Higgins was paid a $108,333 advance.
That’s when Lehrmann’s barrister went in for the kill.
Mr Whybrow suggested she could only press on with the book if Ten and Wilkinson were to win the proceedings, and it was proven on the balance of probabilities that Mr Lehrmann had raped her.
“The marketability of your future memoir is in some substantial part related to the truth of your allegations that Mr Lehrmann sexually assaulted you,” he said.
Ms Higgins replied: “Yes.”
Mr Whybrow: “So you have 216,000-odd reasons, in my submission, to not want to tell the truth, which was that it didn’t happen … You have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.”
The Australian
Higgins stated that, should she ever finish the book, she would donate the $216,667 balance to charity.
The trial continues.
