Brittany Higgins has revealed for the first time how much money she received from taxpayers in a secret compensation payout.
As her cross examination continued on Tuesday, Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister probed Ms Higgins on reports she received more than $3 million.
The Albanese Government has previously refused to disclose the settlement, insisting it was “confidential”.
As the questions turned to the cash settlement, Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysthanou objected to the question.
“I will allow it,” Justice Michael Lee responded.
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister then asked if Ms Higgins had received more than $2 million.
“It has been widely reported that you received over $2 million as a result of the outcome of that mediation, is that correct?,” Mr Whybrow said.
“That’s what’s been reported?,” Ms Higgins replied.
“Yes, I received money from the Commonwealth. They came to an agreement that a failure of a duty of care was made. And they did pay me,” she said.
Ms Higgins said what the offer was on paper and what she actually received after legal fees and taxes were for two different things.
She was represented by personal injury lawyer Noor Blumer of Blumers Lawyers.
“How much money did the Commonwealth pay you to stop you litigating this matter?,” Ms Higgins was asked.
“I received $1.9 million,” Ms Higgins replied.
“So you’ve got no idea what your legal costs were or what the gross settlement sum was?,” Mr Whybrow asked.
“I think it was around $2.3 million. I think it was the amount and then those taxes and then the lawyer took some, but I’m not sure what that fee was. I was never focused on that fee. It was only what I received that I cared about.”
Ms Higgins accepted her medical team said she was too sick to give evidence at a second trial.
“And then when it looked like (Mr Lehrmann) wanted to make money off being a rapist, I of course put my hand up and said please put me back in and here I am,” she said.
Mr Lehrmann denies he raped Ms Higgins.
“You accept as a matter of fact that you’ve made money off being a person who made an allegation of sexual assault,” Mr Whybrow responded.
“That’s true,” she said.
“The Commonwealth admitted that they breached their duty of care and that they didn’t go through proper processes. So that’s actually why they settled with me.”
Higgins grilled over 2022 speech
Ms Higgins has been grilled about the speech she gave after Mr Lehrmann’s rape trial collapsed and asked if it was an attempt to “blow up” his right to a second trial.
The issue relates to Ms Higgins’ speech on the steps of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on October 27, 2022, immediately following the discharge of the jury for jury misconduct in the criminal case.
The Federal Court has previously heard it followed immediately after Chief Justice Lucy McCallum’s request that the media and others “fall silent” to allow for a fair trial.
The first trial collapsed following an allegation of juror misconduct.
“I suggest when you gave that speech, it was designed to blow up a retrial,” Mr Whybrow said.
“Wow,” Ms Higgins responded. “Not at all.”
“You made it clear that you didn’t think that Mr Lehrmann should have a presumption of innocence?,” he asked.
“I don’t think he had a right to my body but here we are,” Ms Higgins responded.
Ms Higgins also became tearful as she told the court she “tried to commit suicide” during the trial.
Justice Lee offered Ms Higgins a short break from cross examination at this point which she accepted.
Ms Higgins speech outside the Supreme Court was played to the Federal Court on Tuesday.
During that speech Ms Higgins fought back tears as she described the justice system as “asymmetrical.”
“I never fully understood the asymmetry of the criminal justice system, but now I do,” she said.
Ms Higgins said that while she was cross-examined at length, she asserted that Mr Lehrmann was “afforded the choice” of remaining silent, and “sat with his head down in a notebook.”
“He never faced one question about his story and the criminal charges,” she said.
“I was required to surrender my telephones, my passwords, messages, photos and my data to him.”
But Mr Lehmann’s barrister put it to Ms Higgins that some of the statements she made including that Mr Lehrmann’s phone was not seized by police were untrue.
“You knew that that was not an accurate statement. Didn’t you?,” Mr Whybrow said.
“That’s what I believed at the time,” she replied.
“What led you to that belief?’ she was then asked.
“It was just what I believed at the time. I remember asking people, ‘Is he being subjected to scrutiny as well’,” she replied.
Ms Higgins was asked if she was questioning his “right to silence” when accused of a criminal offence by not giving evidence.
“I am not a lawyer,” she responded.
Earlier, Justice Lee ruled he would allow the questions about the speech, noting that Mr Lehrmann’s legal team regarded the matter as an issue of credit, to “impugn Ms Higgins credibility.”
“He explained in the absence of the witness that the ultimate proposition he sought to put that was Ms Higgins made false representations,” Justice Lee said on Tuesday morning, a “course of conduct directed to ensuring the rape allegation made by her against Mr Lehrmann’s tasted in civil proceedings, rather than in a further criminal trial.”
“I also took the step of seeking express confirmation from Mr Whybrow that on the material presently in his position, he considers he has a reasonable basis to put the proposition that we seek in spite a series of false representations, in an attempt to avoid a further criminal trial and procure what she perceived was a more favourable forum for the adjudication of the truth of her allegations of rape.”
That is, the standard of proof was lower in a civil defamation trial than a criminal trial.
In a legal argument that was conducted in the absence of Ms Higgins on Friday, Mr Whybrow argued Ms Higgins had a “remarkable recovery” after the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled a second trial could not proceed because of the risk to her mental health.
After saying she was too ill to give evidence, he noted she agreed to give evidence in the defamation trial a few months later.
“The proposition is going to be that Ms Higgins was doing everything she could to make sure there would not be another trial,” Mr Whybrow said.
“So she said things after the first trial on the steps of the Supreme Court in the Australian Capital Territory, which were calculated to mean that the trial on 22 February 2023, could not go ahead.”
During Tuesday’s hearings Ms Higgins became tearful in the late afternoon when she said she “tried to commit suicide” during the first trial.
Justice Lee called for a short break for the witness, which Ms Higgins accepted.
Higgins questioned over white dress
Brittany Higgins has been accused of taking off the white dress she was wearing herself on the night she alleged she was raped before lying on the minister’s couch.
As her cross examination continued on Tuesday, Ms Higgins broke down at points as she was played footage of her entering Parliament House on the night in question.
She also angrily declared “I didn’t steal it!” in relation to a Carla Zampatti jacket she said she took from a box destined for charity.
Ms Higgins said she had been asked to take the jackets to charity and it no longer fit Senator Linda Reynolds.
As the cross examination turned to what happened in the room, Mr Whybrow asked Ms Higgins if she had ever entered the minister’s office by herself before.
He asked her if she had ever entered the minister’s office with Ben Dillaway with whom she was “intimate”.
“Have you ever been in there with Mr Dillaway?’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
Ms Higgins denied this.
“I want to suggest that what happened is that you went into that office and were feeling sick and lay down on the couch,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
He asked her if it was “a possibility that you took your dress off before you lay down on the couch”.
“It’s not something that would ever happen,’’ she replied.
“So I don’t know that that’s not true, but I don’t recall. I don’t recall.”
Ms Higgins said she remembered being on the ledge and the next thing she recalled was allegedly being sexually assaulted on the couch.
“So I don’t know how I got to the couch,’’ she said.
Mr Whybrow said he wanted to put to her that she took her own dress off.
Higgins breaks down as CCTV played
Earlier, Mr Whybrow challenged Ms Higgins over her recollection she was “10/10 drunk” when she went through security at Parliament House.
The footage has been played multiple times during the defamation trial and Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow returned to the video today to ask Ms Higgins how drunk she was.
The Federal Court has previously heard she had 11 alcoholic drinks, weighed 60kg and that a toxicologist would give evidence that she was up to five times the legal limit to drive.
The footage shows her entering Parliament just after 1.41am and needing to take her high heels off to pass through the security check.
Ms Higgins broke down in the witness box on Tuesday and became emotional when she was played CCTV of her walking into Parliament House in her white dress.
After she struggles to get her shoes back on she shrugs and skips towards the office barefoot and smiling.
As she was played the tape, she became emotional and started to cry.
“I want to suggest to you that you don’t look 10 out of 10 drunk or in any distress at that point,’’ Mr Whybrow SC said.
“I hadn’t been raped yet,’’ Ms Higgins shot back.
“But I was skipping in the middle of Parliament with no shoes on so it indicates someone who’s pretty drunk.”
Ms Higgins conceded in cross examination that she could not remember how she had ended up in the minister’s office.
She said she remembered sitting on a ledge looking down into the courtyard.
Ms Higgins said Mr Lehrmann went to get something and the next thing she recalled was being in the ministers’ office.
Mr Whybrow asked if she recalled telling The Project she had laid down before she entered the ministerial office.
“I don’t recall saying that and I didn’t mean it if I did,’’ she said.
Higgins says she ‘didn’t steal’ jacket
Ms Higgins was also cross examined over her decision to take Senator Reynolds Carla Zampatti jacket to cover her body when she left the building.
Mr Whybrow SC put it to Ms Higgins that there was no charity box as she had asserted and she took it from Senator Reynolds’ closet.
“Wrong,’’ she replied.
“It was leftover stuff from the move from Senator Reynolds,’’ she said.
“I didn’t actually steal from Senator Reynolds. It was a charity box. and I borrowed it.
“I took that box out the following week. I eventually put that box in my car, and then eventually, it made it to charity.
“I didn’t steal it.”
Ms Higgins said that if someone at Parliament House could find the footage it would prove she took the box to her car.
“And clear up the fact I’m not a thief that would be awesome,’’ she said.
Higgins accused of ‘ghosting’ her date
Brittany Higgins has been accused of “ghosting” a Bumble date called Nick on the night she was allegedly raped and lying to police about it because she wanted to spend time with Bruce Lehrmann and other colleagues.
Ms Higgins was played an extract of CCTV taken on the night in question on Tuesday as she was cross examined by Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow SC.
The Federal Court was told on Tuesday that Ms Higgins had invited Mr Lehrmann and his colleague Austin Wenke, a staffer in Peter Dutton’s office, to the drinks.
She later told police that her date, who she met on dating app Bumble, was “bullied” by her colleagues and left as a result.
Her Bumble date appeared at 8pm. Mr Lehrmann arrived after 8:30pm. Her date departed less than an hour later.
“I want to suggest … as soon as Mr Wenke and Mr Lehrmann entered the Kingston Hotel, you effectively abandoned your date. And that’s why he eventually left,’’ Mr Whybrow SC said.
“I don’t recall. I was pretty drunk by then. I just remember them being mean to him,’’ Ms Higgins said.
During the cross examination, Mr Whybrow SC played her a CCTV clip.
“We can just see, I suggest, you in the white dress … seated at the table there with Lauren Gain,’’ he said.
“And you’ve effectively, I think the phrase is ‘ghosted’ Nick?” Mr Whybrow asked.
“I wasn’t intending to. But they were talking about the election, and I was interested,’’ she said.
Mr Whybrow then said, “You remember the conversation you’re having (now)?”
“You told the police when you spoke to them in February (2021), ‘My poor Bumble date was bullied mercilessly by everyone at the event and they were all poking fun at him and laughing at him and he was pretty quickly sort of driven out of the event probably within two hours’,” he said.
Mr Whybrow said this was “misleading”.
Ms Higgins told the Federal Court she was drinking to get drunk.
“I used to be very conscious of my weight and my body and I wouldn’t drink anything. Particularly something like water because it would make me bloat. I was drinking for a purpose. I was drinking to get drunk.”
Earlier, Justice Lee asked that the date be referred to as Nick and not the Bumble guy.
“Could we use the man’s Christian name instead of referring to him as Mr Bumble date,’’ Justice Lee said.
“Yes, yes, absolutely,’’ Mr Whybrow responded.
‘Ashamed’: Higgins admits to deleting photo
Brittany Higgins has admitted deleting material from her phone before handing over the device to the police when they were investigating her rape allegation.
During cross examination in the Federal Court on Tuesday, Ms Higgins said the only photograph “of note” she deleted was of her wearing a Make America Great Again hat at a party because she was embarrassed.
She also revealed that she had five different phones for work in different offices and had different iCloud accounts for work and personal use and her Defence phone.
“And you recall that you had been asked since about February (2021) if the police could access your phone to try and get the data off it,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“Yeah, I was worried about leaks and I was seeking legal advice at the time,’’ Ms Higgins responded.
She confirmed she deleted a photograph.
“I was at a party and someone put a Make America Great Again hat on my head and I was ashamed that it was in existence so I deleted it,’’ she said.
“I knew it wasn’t it wasn’t relevant or anything but I was just worried that it would leak. And it was something I was really ashamed of so I deleted it.”
Ms Higgins denied deleting multiple text messages with a housemate, a former colleague Nicky Hamer and others.
“I want to suggest to you that you deleted a lot more than just one photograph of your phone before you gave it to the police,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
Ms Higgins said she updated phones at various times and received new devices for new jobs.
“Yeah, just between moving devices I lost things,’’ she said.
“It wasn’t malicious or anything. I just between having five phones and five years and not having the one iCloud account I had a separate iCloud account for work just data just got lost.”
During the cross examination of Ms Higgins, in relation to claims of her deleting items off her phone, Mr Whybrow asked: “Are you making this up as you go along Ms Higgins?”
Ms Higgins was also grilled on whether she deleted text messages with a security guard that she messaged called Alex.
She said she was considering going on a date with him but never did. She did however call him on the morning after the alleged rape.
“Mr Woods was a security guard at the Australian Parliament House?’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
“Yes, that’s how we first met,” Ms Higgins said.
“And did you know he’d come onto duty at about 8am on Saturday, the 23rd of March that morning. And it was just a coincidence at about 11 or 12 o’clock that day you sent him a text message?’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“Yes,’’ Ms Higgins said.
Mr Whybrow also accused Ms Higgins of deleting all of her text messages with “Nick” her Bumble date on the night she alleged she was raped.
“Understand that in relation to the people I’ve named I’m suggesting that you, ahead of giving your phone to the police, systematically went through and deleted communications you had with people who could be relevant,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“No, it’s not true that it would have happened in 2019,’’ she replied.
Higgins urged to ‘not make speeches’
Justice Michael Lee has warned Brittany Higgins that her cross examination will go faster if she “does not give speeches.”
Ms Higgins is in the witness box for the fifth day. However, Justice Lee who is presiding over the case noted today that the length of the cross examination also relates to how the witness responds to questions.
“The period of cross examination will be shorter if you listen to counsels questions, or respond to the answer, and not make speeches. Thank you,’’ Justice Lee said.
It followed a lengthy exchange over a message she sent to a colleague before she went public informing her about what was about to happen.
Ms Higgins was grilled over a text message and material in her notes where she drafted a text message.
“And you sent it on the 10th of February from your phone and then deleted the message,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
“I suggest, but forgot to delete the note. Do you agree?”
“No, it was never like I’m not ashamed that the fact that this exists, like I told her because I felt it was the right thing to do beforehand,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
“I don’t delete my notes. I’m not ashamed of this.”
Justice Lee then asked Ms Higgins if the answer was “yes.”
Ms Higgins also denied deleting a message off her phone from her ex-boyfriend Ben Dillaway that stated she did not want to pursue a police complaint.
“I’m not interested in pursuing it (a police complaint), but it’s all beyond the strange,’’ the text message stated.
It later emerged when police obtained Mr Dillaway’s phone. Mr Whybrow suggested it contradicted her claim she was pressured not to go to police.
“If anything, corroborates it,” she said. “‘It’s all beyond strange’ which is referring to the political machinations and the things that were going on at the time,’’ she said.
“There were no personal things that I was dealing with and I didn’t disclose everything to him. We were close, we were dating, he was a boyfriend and I really liked him, but we were still new and I didn’t disclose everything to him.”
Higgins returns to the witness box
Brittany Higgins returns to the witness box on Tuesday in the Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson’s defamation trial for her fifth day on Tuesday.
Ms Higgins commenced her evidence-in-chief with Channel Ten’s barrister Matt Collins KC last Tuesday, November 28.
Her cross examination led by Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow SC commenced on Thursday.
She has now been in the witness box for longer than the complainant, Mr Lehrmann, a situation Channel Ten’s lawyer Matt Collins KC described on Friday as “oppressive.”
“It is becoming oppressive – it’s longer than the period Mr Lehrmann was in the witness box and she’s just a witness,” Mr Collins said.
Justice Michael Lee concurred there was “some force in that” and indicated he was prepared to extend sitting hours to ensure Ms Higgins cross-examination was concluded on Tuesday. Ms Higgins was not cross-examined on Monday as the Federal Court was dealing with other matters.
– More to come
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7zZqroqeelrlwr86uqa2rXaGuuHvBq6CtrJGjxm60yKCeoqajYr%2BmwNSrpaxlpKR6uLXTp5ysq12XvLl5yKdkm6qlmLJuuMShqaaZnqPAbrDEn5immaSevK95wpqqnmeemsS0edKtpquxX2yxoq2Vm2dtmmFlgaOuwG9nb5xgma6krZVwmHJwZmmz