WARNING: GRAPHIC
Brittany Higgins had admitted lying about attending a doctor in the week after her alleged rape.
During her cross examination on Thursday, she told the Federal Court that she lied to police, her boss and her former boyfriend Ben Dillaway about going to the doctor.
“I wasn’t looking after myself. I hadn’t gone to a doctor,’’ Ms Higgins said.
“I kept making appointments. But I didn’t do it.”
Ms Higgins said she was “terrified” and too scared to go to a doctor.
However, Mr Whybrow said the claim she was going to a doctor when she asked her chief of staff for a day off was “another lie”.
He also grilled her on whether or not she told police she had attended a doctor.
“You knew it was not true at the time you said it,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
Mr Whybrow then put it to Ms Higgins she had fabricated the rape claim because she thought she would lose her job after being found naked in the ministers’ office.
“You had passed out naked in the defence industry ministers suite, and were found overnight,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“And you didn’t have sex with anybody that night. You passed out drunk.”
‘Felt violated’: Higgins clashes with lawyer
Brittany Higgins has clashed with Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow over the white dress she was wearing during her alleged sexual assault declaring, “I was being raped, it wasn’t my primary concern where my dress was.”
In emotional testimony on Thursday, a tearful Ms Higgins told Mr Whybrow that her memory wasn’t perfect.
She was grilled about whether the dress was on or off during the alleged sexual assault.
But when the questions repeatedly turned to accounts where she said her dress was half-on during the alleged assault and when she woke up, Ms Higgins responded angrily to Mr Whybrow.
“I was being raped,” Ms Higgins said.
“It wasn’t my primary concern whether my dress was on. I was more concerned about the penis in my vagina that I didn’t want it.
“It wasn’t about my dress. I wasn’t concerned about my dress at that moment.”
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister then put to Ms Higgins she had “fabricated” the allegation of sexual assault.
“Ms Higgins you understand that is a fabrication, that you were sexually assaulted, don’t you?,’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
“I understand that that is your assertion. It’s insulting, but I understand it,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
Later, Barrister Steve Whybrow clashed again with Ms Higgins, instructing her to “stop giving speeches.”
“Could you stop giving speeches and just answer my question,’’ he said.
At this point, Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysthanou stood and intervened.
“I object,’’ she said.
“He’s asked this question at least five or six times. It’s now getting very repetitive under Section 41. The witnesses answered.”
“My friend keeps asking the same question over and over again.”
Justice Lee noted there were police records of the meetings as Ms Higgins could be heard sobbing in the background on the audio.
But after Justice Lee said he wanted to “move on” Channel Ten’s barrister Matt Collins told the court he was “concerned about the welfare of the witness.”
Justice Lee ordered a brief break.
Earlier, Mr Whybrown put to Ms Higgins that the reason why she didn’t go to a doctor was because “you hadn’t actually been sexually assaulted.
But Ms Higgins then told the Federal Court that was “incorrect.”
“I didn’t have a support system. I was by myself in Canberra. I had no one around me so I was so scared,’’ she said.
Mr Whybrow noted he had the support of her ex-boyfriend Ben Dillaway.
“On Thursday and Friday. Days after it happened. At what point? What’s the rape kit gonna do? Like five days later?,’’ Ms Higgins said.
Mr Whybrow asked Ms Higgins if she was saying he wouldn’t have supported you to go to a doctor on that Friday?
“I don’t know. We weren’t even dating at the time,’’ Ms Higgins said.
“He was the only person I kind of knew, but I don’t know. I don’t know. In hindsight, I probably should have asked.
Higgins questioned over draft copy of book
Mr Whybrow also cross-examined Ms Higgins over a draft copy of her book where she wrote an account of waking up after the alleged rape.
In one entry she writes that there was blood coming out of her knee and that “fresh blood seeped from the wound.”
“Once again, as I’ve acknowledged, the rough draft isn’t a real thing. I never put it anywhere. It was wrong,’’ she said.
“This isn’t a finished product.”
Mr Whybrow then asked if she was sometimes writing things down that were “not accurate.”
“It’s my journal,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
“It was a rough form. And we were going to go through it with the editors to make it actually perfect but I was just putting words on a paper trying to get to 90,000 words at this point.
“The evidence I gave in the criminal trial is my living testament. That evidence I gave to the police is my living testament that I would swear by.
“But this as I’ve said time and time again is a story of my life that I worked on that I did not submit that is not finalised that is not finished that I have said time and time again. I do not stand by.”
Justice Lee warned Mr Whybrow at one stage that the questions were straying into “Section 41 territory.”
The former version of s 41 in the uniform Evidence Acts granted the court the power to disallow improper questions asked in cross-examination if it is misleading, unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or repetitive.
Mr Whybrow then turned to whether Ms Higgins told police in 2019 that she was drinking gin and tonics.
“I don’t think the gin and tonic is true. I think they may have made a mistake because I really don’t drink tonic water because it has calories in it,’’ Ms Higgins said.
Ms Higgins has also revealed she felt “violated” by a Four Corners program that interviewed security guard Nikola Anderson because she was talking about the night she found her naked.
Ms Higgins has been accused of “reverse engineering” her memories of the night of her alleged rape as more information emerges during her cross examination in the Federal Court.
She has also conceded that police warned her against going public with her story to the media and that was their “preference”.
Mr Whybrow resumed the cross examination at 2.22pm on Thursday and took Ms Higgins to text messages she sent to her friend Emma Webster about not being given a right of reply to an interview with Ms Anderson that Four Corners broadcast in March, 2021.
“After I had a bit of a breakdown to the Four Corners producer … he’s going to give me a draft copy of her interview, and give me an opportunity to reply,’’ Ms Higgins said.
Mr Whybrow said she had changed her story after watching the security guard’s account.
“It wasn’t about a contradiction. That was it was the fact that someone was going to talk about my rape on TV,” Ms Higgins said.
“It really wasn’t about any sort of contradiction. It was the fact that someone was going on TV to talk about my rape. It felt weird, and I was upset about it.”
Mr Whybrow then said she objected anyone giving interviews about that night “other than you.”
“Of course, I was the one who was raped so naturally, I feel like I’d like to have some sort of oversight on the story. I felt violated by it.”
He also grilled Ms Higgins on her account to The Project and to news.com.au that when she woke up she was wearing a dress that was scrunched up.
However, security guards told the criminal trial that she was completely naked on the couch. Ms Higgins said she now accepted that she may have been completely naked and what she initially said may not be true. She has previously given evidence she was wearing a dress and no underwear.
“The reason you don’t believe it’s true is because having reverse engineered other evidence it doesn’t fit with other things you’ve said,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“No, I was highly traumatised, the morning after,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
“I was still disorientated. I physically couldn’t get up off the couch the morning before. I was highly traumatised.”
Mr Whybrow said that he accepted she could be traumatised, but that The Project interview was two years later.
“It’s what I believed to be true at the time, and I accept other evidence to the contrary,’’ she said. “And I now know that I woke up, I was sick, and the security guard called in at 9am.
“Memory isn’t perfect, particularly after trauma, I accept the other evidence to the contrary, and it makes sense, in hindsight.”
Ms Higgins is being cross examined in the defamation trial that Bruce Lehrmann has launched against Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson. Mr Lehrmann has vehemently and consistently denied raping Ms Higgins.
Higgins admits she ‘lied’ about underwear
Ms Higgins has told the Federal Court that her initial claim to Lisa Wilkinson that she was wearing underwear on the night of the alleged rape was “a lie”.
Ms Higgins was cross-examined on Thursday over an audio recording of a pre-interview conducted by The Project with Ms Wilkinson and producer Angus Llewllyn.
The Q&A came prior to her televised interview which was later broadcast on February 15, 2021.
During that discussion, Ms Wilkinson asked her a question about whether Mr Lehrmann would have had to take off her underwear to rape her.
“So he removed your panties?,’’ Ms Wilkinson asks.
“Yeah,’’ Ms Higgins replied. “Yeah, my dress was half off. I was exposed from the belly button down essentially.”
During cross examination on Thursday, Mr Whybrow asked her about the claim that Mr Lehrmann removed her underwear.
“Do you agree Ms Higgins you are giving very specific details of your recollections at that time as to where your dress was?”
“Yes, I was,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
“And are you telling His Honour that those recollections were not reliable?,’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
“You agreed with Ms Wilkinson when she asked you whether Mr Lehrmann had removed your underwear?”
“Yes, it was a conversational tone. And I was too embarrassed to admit that I wasn’t wearing underwear that night,’’ Ms Higgins said.
“Well, it was a lie, wasn’t it?,’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
“Yes,’’ Ms Higgins responded.
At the conclusion of those questions, Ms Higgins asked to “correct the record.”
“Can I correct the record really quickly? I said that I lied about the underwear.
“But I just want to make it clear that in the interview I told the truth that I wasn’t wearing underwear to the police.
“I told the truth that I didn’t wear the underwear in the criminal proceedings.
“I told the truth that I didn’t wear underwear. It was in one conversation in passing where I had a lie of omission and I completely pulled my hands up to that.”
Justice Lee noted that she had counsel involved in the case “if they wish to adduce further evidence from you in relation to something then they’ll have the opportunity of doing that and re-examination.”
“I will take it essentially as client based re-examination.”
During the criminal trial, Ms Higgins was also shown a transcript of a question-and-answer session between her and The Project host Lisa Wilkinson on January 21, 2021.
The court heard Higgins told Lisa Wilkinson in a research interview that Bruce Lehrmann removed her underwear.
“I didn’t wear underwear and I was embarrassed,’’ Higgins said in ACT Supreme Court during the trial.
“I was embarrassed by it ... I continue to be embarrassed by it in front of a court.”
Ms Higgins said she did not wear underwear with her dress on the basis that it had lines.
“I’m a 20-year-old girl, we care about stuff like that.”
Higgins got ‘bamboozled’ during Lehrmann trial
Brittany Higgins has been grilled over her claim of a panic attack in a parliamentary bathroom conceding she was “not always correct” in evidence she gave in the criminal rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann.
Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow SC has commenced her cross-examination in the defamation trial this morning. He also cross examined her during the criminal trial.
Asked if she was “wrong about some significant matters” in the criminal trial, Ms Higgins said: “I accept that. Absolutely.”
“I thought I was telling the truth. I was just not always correct but I was always doing my best to tell the truth,” she said.
During the criminal trial, Ms Higgins said she had a panic attack on April 4, 2019 because she was in the bathroom for “three or four hours having a panic attack.”
Ms Higgins conceded that she did not have a panic attack that lasted for three hours.
She also conceded at the trial under cross examination that the panic attack was possibly not on that day.
“Last time I thought maybe I got it wrong,” Ms Higgins said.
“But on further reflection. I realised I was just overwhelmed during the criminal trial and I misspoke. It definitely happened that day. And I just kind of got bamboozled.”
She said as a result of the panic attack she missed former Liberal MP Steve Ciobo’s valedictory speech.
But Mr Whybrow put it to her that she was not bamboozled.
“I want to suggest that this evidence you gave yesterday about the panic attack being after and you missed the valedictory speech or the start of it is an example of altering further information. Do you accept that or not,” Mr Whybrow SC asked.
“What I want to suggest to you, Ms Higgins, is that as you find out further information you adapt and involve your narrative to fit the new information.”
‘I don’t care about the money’
Ms Higgins has declared she “doesn’t care about the money” from the $325,000 publishing deal, revealing that the book is now “on hold”.
During her cross examination today by Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow, Ms Higgins has revealed she had put the book on ice pending the outcome of legal proceedings including the criminal trial and the defamation trial.
In an exchange with Mr Whybrow, she pledged to donate the balance of the proceedings to charity if she ever completes the book.
Mr Whybrow presented Ms Higgins with a signed contract of the Penguin book deal in the Federal Court.
“And the terms of this contract included that you would be paid $325,000 for a book about your experiences, including what happened to you on the 22nd, 23rd of March 2019,’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
Ms Higgins responded that this was “correct”.
Mr Whybrow noted she was paid $108,233 on the execution of the agreement. The balance was to be paid when she completed the book.
“And on execution of this agreement, you were to be provided $108,233?”
“That’s correct,” she replied.
Mr Whybrow then argued that she had a financial interest in publishing the book.
“And so, you have 216,000 reasons, in my submission, to not want to tell the truth, which is that it didn’t happen,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
At this point, Channel 10’s barrister Sue Chrysthanou objected.
Justice Lee said that if Mr Whybrow was putting to the witness she had a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings he would allow that statement.
“I declare it now, if I have actually finished the book, I will donate all $200,000 and whatever, to charity,’’ Ms Higgins responded.
“I don’t care about the money. Take it right away. I don’t care about it.”
Ms Higgins was also grilled over factual inaccuracies in the draft of her book, which was provided to legal parties in the criminal trial and the defamation trial as a result of subpoenas.
She said the book was “a draft” and she conceded there were errors of fact in the sequence.
“It’s not a final draft,” she said.
Earlier, Mr Whybrow grilled her on whether or not she ate a box of Roses chocolates in the ministerial suite the morning after she alleged she was raped and whether she found the box in the kitchen or on a colleague’s desk.
Ms Higgins was today read extracts of the unpublished book that she described as “crap”.
Mr Whybrow said that she wrote in April of 2021, “everything felt foggy. I pulled myself up abroad, clamouring desperately, to the leather couch.”
“Yes,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
“Were you indicating there that at the time that the call came you’re inside the minister’s private office?,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“That’s what the book says but the book is crap and my evidence yesterday stands,” Ms Higgins replied.
Mr Whybrow put to Ms Higgins that “you have been changing your evidence and evolving it as you found out other information inconsistent before too early”.
“The next thing you say in the book is, ‘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 been lost, I pulled my dress down and adjusted the straps,’ the book draft stated,” Mr Whybrow said.
Ms Higgins replied, “Yes, that’s what I wrote.”
However, she now accepted, based on the security guard’s account, that it was possible she was completely naked.
“I suggest that within a few seconds of waking up you would have become aware of whether you were wearing your dress or not?,” Mr Whybrow asked.
“Are you suggesting that your evidence can’t be relied on,” Mr Whybrow said.
“No,” Ms Higgins replied.
“I’m accepting the fact that someone gave evidence to my nakedness, and I also did feel a level of nakedness. I just assumed it was scrunched up around my waist but that may not be correct and I accept that well,” Ms Higgins replied.
“I was so traumatised after the rape. I was aware of my nakedness, but not full nakedness.
“I just assumed it was still scrunched up, and then when I was sick in the bathroom I don’t remember having to look around to pick up my dress to put it back on.”
Cash’s voicemail to Higgins resurfaces
Employment Minister Michaelia Cash reassured Ms Higgins to “sleep tight” after there were media inquiries about the night she alleged she was raped in 2019, pledging to her in a voicemail message that her chief of staff had the issue “under control”.
Ms Higgins is continuing her evidence on Thursday and is being cross examined by Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow SC.
She told the Federal Court this morning as she completed her evidence in chief that she interpreted the Cash exchange was clearly about her sexual assault.
The voicemail message was left on her phone in October, 2019, many months before she went public with her story.
“Michaelia here, just checking up on you. You looked absolutely gorgeous on Saturday. I really hope you had a lovely time at the Federal Council. Hoping everything’s OK, Daniel has got everything under control, I promise you, and just remember, we’re with you every step of the way. OK. Sleep tight. I’ll see you tomorrow,’’ Senator Cash said.
Senator Cash has previously given evidence in the criminal trial that she did not know there was a sexual assault allegation. She said she only knew there was a security incident in a minister’s office.
Ms Higgins gave evidence on Thursday that she was distressed and alarmed when she was warned in October, 2019 that there was a media query about an alleged rape in a ministers office
Ms Higgins went to work for Senator Cash’s office in June 2019 after she left the Defence Industry Minister’s office after the 2019 election.
She initially did not tell her new boss or chief of staff about the alleged rape that had occurred three months earlier.
But in October 2019, nearly six months after the alleged assault, Ms Higgins was alarmed to learn that a media inquiry had been lodged with Ms Reynolds’ office and the AFP about the incident.
This prompted discussions between Ms Reynolds’ office and Senator Cash’s office over how to handle the matter.
“Did you at any time have any discussions with Senator Cash in relation to the events of the 23rd of March 29?,’’ Dr Collins KC asked.
“I did in October of 2019. There was a media inquiry that came through either to I’m not sure if it was either to Senator Reynolds office or to the AFP but it was raised that there was a media inquiry about a sexual assault in Senator Reynolds office on the night in question,’’ Ms Higgins said.
“I became aware because my Chief of Staff Daniel Try … called me into the office and said that Senator (Reynolds) had just called him.”
“I believe it was the 18th of October 2019.”
Ms Higgins said that Mr Try said, “Oh God, I’m so sorry.”
Mr Try has previously given evidence in the criminal trial that he was not aware of a sexual assault allegation and that Senator Reynolds did not tell him of an alleged sexual assault.
Ms Higgins said she was told there was a media inquiry about the night in question and “I was immediately pretty upset.”
Ms Higgins told the federal court that the word sexual assault was used with Mr Try.
“I don’t recall specifically what I said in response when he first told me I was, I think I was in shock,’’ she said.
Ms Higgins said a meeting then occurred with a staff member from Senator Linda Reynolds’ office.
She was also contacted by someone from the AFP.
“(I received the call) from an officer who I had previously met with in April of 2019, informing me that … because there was a media inquiry, that we’re going to put it in the AFP commissioners’ Senate estimates pack and they, as a courtes,’’ Ms Higgins said.
In evidence that was accepted provisionally subject to possible future rulings by Lee J,
Brittany Higgins also revealed she first learned Bruce Lehrmann planned to argue the pair never had sex from a journalist after he was charged with rape.
More Coverage
She confirmed she was informed by news.com.au journalist Samantha Maiden.
“To the best of my recollection she told me Bruce’s defence is that nothing happened,” Ms Higgins told the court. “I said something like ‘Oh God, you made my weekend.’”
“I was really shocked and kind of happy at the time that he was saying that nothing had happened because to my mind it was so preposterous.”
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7zZqroqeelrlwr86uqa2rXaGuuHvBq6CtrJGjxm60yKCeoqajYrCzu9KsnLGZnZ67prCMmqtmmqKqsKZ5y56fq6WRo7u0ecOenZqlkam2sLqMramimZxku6bD0maqraeirnx0rpGemp9ukmmwp4SXa21vamBlfqaDwZpocZ1maH12fA%3D%3D