The drama just never stops, in the Brittany Higgins–Bruce Lehrmann rape accusation saga. A week after Higgins went AWOL mid-testimony for a week, the jury has been dismissed. After first failing to reach a verdict, the jury was dismissed after claims a juror had brought outside research into the jury room.
At this point, with legal proceedings still active and especially after the judge strongly admonished against making statements or comments that could prejudice a fair trial, you’d think all involved would leave court with their mouths firmly shut. Not our Brittany.
The woman who stitched up media coverage and book deals before going to the police lost no time in racing out to the assembled media.
After the decision, Higgins made an emotional statement outside the ACT supreme court in which she thanked supporters and also levelled criticisms against the justice system.
While that might play well to the Twitter peanut gallery, it’s not likely to go down so well with m’lady judge. It certainly hasn’t impressed the defence team.
Accused rapist Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyers have referred public comments made by Brittany Higgins on Thursday to the court and police, saying they “might” amount to contempt of court.
Higgins, Lehrmann’s barrister, Steven Whybrow, says, “proceeded to give what appears to have been a pre-prepared speech to the media outside the court”.
The statement – which was broadcast in full on public and commercial television stations – has immediately drawn the ire of Lehrmann’s legal team.
In a statement, Lehrmann’s barrister, Steven Whybrow, noted the Australian Capital Territory’s chief justice, Lucy McCallum, had made “strong comments about people making statements or comments that could prejudice a fair trial”.
“We have brought these comments to the attention of the court and the Australian federal police, and it is not appropriate for Mr Lehrmann or his lawyers to make any comment as to whether the complainant’s statements might amount to a contempt of court or offences against the ACT Criminal Code,” he said.
Higgins particularly complained about Lehrmann’s use of his right to silence.
In criminal cases, the accused have a right to silence. During the trial both the judge and the prosecutor, Shane Drumgold SC, repeatedly stressed to the jury that it was up to the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Guardian
Much of Higgins’ statement, though, should properly not be aired, precisely because it is likely to prejudice the re-trial set for February. Which hasn’t stopped The Age and Sydney Morning Herald from printing them in full.
It’s almost as if they don’t want the trial to come to a conclusion. But I’m sure that’s just pure cynicism.
