Lehrmann defamation trial: Lehrmann’s lawyer takes final swipe at Brittany Higgins as trial comes to an end

Lawyers for alleged parliament House rapist Bruce Lehrmann hit out at his accuser Brittany Higgins on Friday, calling her a liar, a perjurer, a fabricator and a destroyer of evidence. In an incendiary final day of Mr Lehrmann’s defamation trial, the barrister who defended him on criminal charges — which were eventually dropped — took his final shots in the civil court, which is now set to decide his fate. Steven Whybrow employed both barrels, listing the litany of lies he said Ms Higgins has told since March 2019 — to her friends, colleagues, her bosses, and the police. And finally, to The Project in February 2021, which sparked a firestorm of national publicity. “Oh, If she had taken the advice of police not to litigate this through the media,” Mr Whybrow said. “If only the people around her, like (David) Sharaz, (Emma) Webster, (Lisa) Wilkinson and politicians. “If only they had said: ‘Brittany, this is an important story but you should go to the police. The story can wait’. “We wouldn’t have had what appears to be a virus of madness that spread where sub judice went out the window — where the rights of the individual ceased to exist.” Through hours on his feet, Mr Whybrow waded through what he called his “case theory”. Where the rape allegation had sprung from, why it was raised then dropped — and then raised again two years later. He claimed in court that for many Mr Lehrmann would always be the man who raped Ms Higgins “irrespective of judgment, irrespective of the facts (or) the evidence.” In fact, he said the defamation trial — and Network Ten’s truth defence — meant this was “a contest between the evidence of two young people.” And he said of those two, Ms Higgins “is not an accurate nor a reliable historian”. “The breadcrumbs and the falsity and the preparedness of Ms Higgins to say things that suit her narrative and her interests is quite compelling,” Mr Whybrow asserted “She has demonstrated herself to be repeatedly, and in various forums over a significant period of time, less than frank or honest. “It’s not just dishonest ... she has invented allegations and fabricated evidence.” He said those lies spread from her employer to her friends to Federal agents, to police, The Project and finally to the courtroom. And he had a theory why. “It must have been a horrible moment for Ms Higgins to wake up in that office,” he said. “That might reasonably be described as a potential career-limiting or career-ending move for somebody, especially with ambitions to be a politician.” The Tuesday after the alleged incident “her world falls apart”, Mr Whybrow said, when she sees Mr Lehrmann apparently being fired. So, he claims, she begins putting out “breadcrumbs” that she may have been assaulted, in order to save her job. “You’ve knocked the snowball off the top of this mountain. And it’s starting to roll down and these people take these disclosures very seriously,” he said. The disclosure in question meant investigators chased down the CCTV from The Dock bar on the night of the alleged rape. Mr Whybrow used that footage in court to “debunk the myths” that political staffer Mr Lehrmann had plied his junior colleague with drinks in order to make a romantic move. He pointed to parts of the footage showing other people buying and offering drinks to Ms Higgins. He pointed to other vision, where the pair can be seen apparently getting along. “Rather than some evil against-her-will-plying one can see from this ... it’s just an innocuous social exchange,’ Mr Whybrow said. At one point, Ms Higgins can be seen taking a photo on her phone of a cocktail on a table — a photograph, along with others taken by her on the night, never recovered by investigators. “Ms Higgins said she had some photos from that night on her phone and she was asked to keep them,” Mr Whybrow said. “It was Ms Higgins who obfuscated and delayed presenting her phone to the police for a period of three months. “I will obviously be saying she has deliberately destroyed evidence. And we say for the purposes of hiding the fact that she had not been sexually assaulted.” Mr Whybrow claimed Ms Higgins had however produced another crucial photo — of a bruise on her leg — as a “fabrication”, and later handed it over to The Project as potential physical proof. He also referenced her claim that she had stored, untouched, the white dress she had been wearing that night — before a photo showed her wearing it weeks later. And when Justice Michael Lee queried why Ms Higgins would raise the allegation again two years later, having cemented her career in Canberra, Mr Whybrow pointed to her now fiance David Sharaz. “It’s almost like a Where’s Wally. He’s everywhere, but you can’t find him in this,” he said. “He’s making all of these inputs ... this was a political hit job, if you look at the communications emanating from him.” That job was accepted unquestioningly by Lisa Wilkinson, according to those suing her. “She was gleefully anticipating her hit ... on Linda Reynolds, and the Coalition government.” Justice Lee reserved his decision, to be handed down next year.