Brittany Higgins has concluded her evidence to the defamation trial of Bruce Lehrmann, and has denied that she deliberately tried to thwart the re-trial of Mr Lehrmann for her alleged rape.
Key points:
- Brittany Higgins — a key witness for Network Ten — is being cross-examined by Bruce Lehrmann's lawyers
- Mr Lehrmann's barrister Steven Whybrow is quizzing Ms Higgins over her intoxication on the night she alleges she was raped
- Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over an interview on The Project
Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over an interview on The Project in which Ms Higgins detailed her rape allegation.
Network Ten is seeking to prove the substantial truth of its report, while Mr Lehrmann has always denied any wrongdoing after his criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court was aborted last year with no findings against him.
On Tuesday, the Federal Court was played a speech Ms Higgins gave on October 27, 2022, when the trial was abandoned, in which she said that she stood by her allegation.
"Today's outcome does not change the truth," Ms Higgins said.
Later, the former ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, announced he would not seek to re-try the case, due to a "significant and unacceptable risk" to Ms Higgins's life.
On Tuesday, Ms Higgins said the decision was not hers.
"I was willing to go through the criminal case again, it was advised by doctors and lawyers that I couldn't," she said.
But Mr Lehrmann's barrister Steven Whybrow suggested the remarks she made outside court on the day the original trial was abandoned were designed to "blow up" the re-trial.
"That was because you did not want to risk a jury finding Mr Lehrmann not guilty," he put to her.
Ms Higgins rejected that.
"I'd just gone through a criminal trial, I wasn't hiding from anyone," she said.
Ms Higgins later posted on social media that she was willing to testify in defamation proceedings.
"I wanted him to know that I wouldn't let my rapist become a millionaire … so I said that I would do it, and I'm here," she said.
Brittany Higgins received $1.9 million from the Commonwealth
Ms Higgins has also revealed to the court the amount she received in a previously confidential financial settlement from the Commonwealth.
"I received $1.9 million," Ms Higgins said.
She said the actual amount agreed to may have been higher, but some amount of that was swallowed up by taxes and legal fees.
"I know what was agreed on on paper and what I actually received were two different things," she said.
Ms Higgins also gave evidence that she was "10 out of 10 drunk" on the night in question, after the pair had been at a Canberra pub before going to a nightclub and then later to Parliament House.
On Tuesday, the court was again shown the CCTV footage of the pair going through security at Parliament House.
Loading..."There doesn't appear to be any staggering or swerving in your gait," Mr Lehrmann's barrister Steven Whybrow said.
He said she didn't look "10 out of 10 drunk or in any distress" when she later walked barefoot beyond security towards an elevator.
"I hadn't been raped yet," Ms Higgins said.
"But I was skipping in the middle of parliament with no shoes on, so it indicates someone who's pretty drunk."
Lawyers accuse Ms Higgins of 'systematically' deleting text messages
Ms Higgins was also asked about text messages between herself and close friend Ben Dillaway three days after the alleged rape.
In the messages, Ms Higgins disclosed the alleged rape in indirect language.
"I was barely lucid. I really don't feel like it was consensual at all," she wrote.
"I just think, if he thought it was okay, why would he just leave me there like that."
Mr Whybrow put to Ms Higgins that the messages suggested she was unsure about what had happened on the night.
"I was giving Bruce every benefit of every doubt that I had," Ms Higgins replied.
"What if he didn't know I was drunk? What if he didn't hear me say no? What if he didn't realise I was crying?"
Mr Whybrow also asked Ms Higgins about text messages which were not on her phone when she gave it to police for their investigation, but which there is a record of having been sent.
Mr Whybrow suggested she had "systematically … deleted communications with people who are witnesses, and whose communications might have undone" her account.
Ms Higgins rejected that and said many of them would have been deleted, or lost when she changed devices, between the time she decided not to go ahead with her police investigation, and when it was reactivated.
"Between having five phones in five years and not having the one iCloud account … data just got lost," she said.
Ms Higgins told the court she regrets no longer having some of her conversations with colleagues during that period.
"If anything, they would have helped me, so I wish they would have been in existence."
Mr Whybrow took her specifically to a conversation with Mr Dillaway, in which a message that appears on Mr Dillaway's phone does not appear on Ms Higgins's.
The conversation took place in the days before Ms Higgins informed police she did not wish to proceed with a criminal complaint.
The missing message suggests she had already made up her mind about this issue.
Ms Higgins told the court she was beginning to disclose her decision, but denied deleting the message for fear it contradicted her account of having to choose between pursuing the complaint and remaining employed.
"I must have accidentally deleted it at some point," she told the court.
"But I have no issue with it. I'm glad it exists."
Justice Michael Lee told the court his preference was for Ms Higgins's cross-examination to conclude on Tuesday, and on one occasion asked Mr Whybrow if he could "shortcut" his line of questioning.
But he also said the cross-examination would be shorter if Ms Higgins refrained from "making speeches" in answer to Mr Whybrow's questions.