The fallout from the Brittany Higgins scandal continues to rain down. The ACT Director of Prosecutions may have called a halt to criminal proceedings against the accused — but now the DPP is finding himself the accused in an inquiry into the whole legal fracas. Canberra DPP Shane Drumgold, who wanted a public inquiry into police handling of Higgins’ rape allegations, is surely realising that he perhaps ought to have been careful what he wished for.
On day one of the Sofronoff inquiry, material before it – and now made public – suggests the ACT Director of Prosecutions may be in a world of pain […]
Drumgold is central to this inquiry for reasons that will soon become clearer to all Australians. The most serious issues facing Drumgold, by a country mile, concern disclosure. Did the DPP disclose all material he was duty-bound to disclose to Lehrmann’s defence to ensure there was a fair trial?
Prosecutors are required to disclose relevant material to defence lawyers, so the accused can properly and fairly defend themselves in court. It’s alleged that Drumgold withheld critical documents from Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyers.
These were called the Internal Review Documents, known informally as the Moller reports, after DS Scott Moller, the senior police officer who oversaw the investigation into the alleged rape.
What happened, in short, is that once Lehrmann’s lawyer became aware of the existence of the missing Moller reports, the DPP then fought tooth and nail to prevent the reports – prepared by police as part of the investigation into the rape allegation – from being disclosed to the defence.
Lehrmann’s first set of Legal Aid lawyers were told of the existence of the Moller reports. But, when he sacked his Legal Aid lawyers, his new, high-powered legal team, the prosecution squirreled the critical documents away in a vaguely-worded list of supposedly non-disclosable material.
Why were the Moller reports so critical? Because, in the words of Lehrmann’s lawyer:
“I suspect the trial is going to be a bloodbath and that when it’s over it won’t be the end of it and there will undoubtedly be inquiries afterwards as to how and why it was able to get this far.”
The Australian
The contents of the Moller reports are explosive. They describe Higgins as “evasive, unco-operative and manipulative”. Significant discrepancies in her statements are highlighted. Including:
INTOXICATION
• Brittany Higgins said Bruce Lehrmann ‘bought her drinks all night’ but CCTV footage did not reflect this, and Lehrmann’s financial records show he spent $16 at The Dock and $40 at 88MPH.
• Higgins said she was ‘10/10 drunk’ but Parliament House CCTV footage showed her interacting with security staff, smiling and laughing, with no signs of being unwell.
• Higgins said she ‘couldn’t walk’ but CCTV footage showed her walking without issue in heels.
• Higgins said she was ‘super-inebriated’ but security staff described her as ‘slightly intoxicated’.
• Higgins said she couldn’t write her name and that Lehrmann signed her in, but a security guard described her as willingly signing her own name. On being shown the sign-in sheet she said: “That’s not my handwriting”.
88MPH BAR
• Higgins told police on 8 April in 2019, two weeks after the alleged rape, that she could not recall the name of the nightclub she went to with Lehrmann, yet days earlier she had told a work colleague it was 88MPH.
• Higgins told The Project she had no romantic actions with Lehrmann at 88MPG but her friend Lauren Gain said they had hands on each other’s legs and were ‘pashing’; she was also observed to be taking selfies of Lehrmann and herself on her phone. She informed police she had photos on her phone of the evening and that she would keep them for police, but never provided them. Note: Lehrmann also denied ‘pashing’ Higgins but ‘concedes that they were close’ […]
HIGGINS’ PHONE
• Higgins decline to provide her phone on numerous occasions despite being made aware of its importance to the investigation.
• Police discovered texts on Higgins’ phone that said ‘I’m clearing out my phone ahead of police’ and ‘F..k it, if they (AFP) want to play hardball, I’ll cry on The Project again because of this sort of treatment.
There have long been noted discrepancies about bruising Higgins claimed she received to her leg during the alleged assault, and Higgins’ description of the scene and how she was discovered by security guards.
Then there’s the disclosures around Higgins and former boyfriend Ben Dillaway:
• Nicole Haymer (a former colleague of Lehrmann) advised […] that Higgins and Dillaway have had sex on multiple occasions in the same office to which she is stating she was sexually assaulted.
• Higgins and Dillaway were having an affair as Dillaway was engaged at the time.
Damningly, the report notes that:
Higgins had been counselled for lying before.
To be fair, Lehrmann doesn’t emerge squeaky clean from the Moller reports, either:
• The version of events did not seem plausible and the suggestion two people entered an office at that time of evening and had no further interaction seemed unlikely.
• He denied having drinks in the office. Notes of Fiona Brown taken at the time showed he conceded he was drinking whiskey and had two glasses while chatting with Ms Higgins.
The Australian
It’s all a tangled web, all right. But it must always be remember that the burden of proof always, always, rests on the person making the accusations.
The media and the left deliberately chose to ignore that fundamental principle of logic and law.
