Day two of the Sofronoff inquiry into the handling of the Brittany Higgins rape accusations, and the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions is keen to defend himself after a shocking first day. As BFD readers may recall, the first day of hearings saw the DPP accused of effectively trying to withhold key information from Bruce Lehrmann’s Defence lawyers. That information included police reports of dozens of inconsistencies in Higgins’ evidence and a police note that she was “evasive, unco-operative and manipulative”.
ACT DPP Shane Drumgold SC spent the second day of the inquiry vigorously defending himself. Strangely, though, much of his argument seems to amount to him claiming that he wanted police to back off from fully investigating the case.
Mr Drumgold told the Sofronoff inquiry on Wednesday said he became concerned because there had been “significant problems” and investigators had “displayed a passionate interest in not proceeding”.
Perhaps because, as Defence lawyer Steven Whybrow SC put it, the case was shaping up to be a “bloodbath” for the accuser. Whybrow also claims a senior detective investigating threatened to quit if Lehrmann was convicted.
Mr Drumgold is being questioned about an email he sent on October 12 in 2022 about “inappropriate” approaches to potential witnesses in the case […]
The Sofronoff inquiry heard the AFP wanted to conduct a second evidence-in-chief interview, which they subsequently did, to ask her about inconsistencies in her interviews with police.
Mr Drumgold on Wednesday said he was concerned about the second interview because it could be traumatic to Ms Higgins.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Drumgold that a false accusation would be at all traumatic to the accused, Lehrmann. Or that police have a duty to try and discover the facts of a case.
It also doesn’t seem to have occurred to Drumgold that he was being had.
Mr Drumgold stressed again that police had for a year and a half told him he should not proceed including because Ms Higgins was “manipulative” and said investigators were trying to “snowball the prosecution” […]
Mr Drumgold said he was communicating with Ms Higgins’ lawyer about the prospects of a second trial because the former Liberal staffer was “quite fragile”.
Not so fragile, apparently, that she wasn’t able to finish a double degree, do rounds of media and public appearances, or nip off for an overseas holiday almost the instant the trial was dropped.
Mr Drumgold also seems to have had less regard for women if they happened to be on the conservative side of politics.
Mr Drumgold was grilled about how he treated Senator Linda Reynolds during Mr Lehrmann’s rape trial last year […]
Mr Drumgold, who successfully applied to have Ms Reynolds declared a hostile witness at the trial, had essentially put to her – in front of the jury – that she had improperly arranged for her partner to attend court and tell her about Ms Higgins testimony.
The Australian
Because, how dare someone’s partner be in court to support them when they’re due to be cross-examined.
And how dare police rigorously investigate an accusation a woman makes against a man.
