Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer accuses Brittany Higgins of throwing Lisa Wilkinson ‘under the bus’

Bruce Lehrmann’s defence lawyer has accused Brittany Higgins of fabricating doctors’ appointments and throwing her boyfriend and Lisa Wilkinson ‘under the bus’ after she went public with her rape allegations.

The former Liberal staffer is accused of assaulting Ms Higgins, his former colleague, in Parliament House after a night out in March 2019. 

He pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and has undergone a three-week criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court.

During his closing arguments on Tuesday, Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow claimed to the jury Ms Higgins ‘fabricates’ information and places blame on others when ‘what’s going on doesn’t suit her’.

‘You have to pull every tooth before you get the truth,’ he said.

Bruce Lehrmann’s defence lawyer said Brittany Higgins threw her boyfriend David Sharaz (pictured together) and Lisa Wilkinson ‘under the bus’

On February 15, Brittany Higgins’ TV interview with Lisa Wilkinson (pictured together) was televised

He suggested that Ms Higgins not attending a doctor’s appointment was ‘a big deal’ because ‘she didn’t need to – she didn’t have sex with anyone’.

‘She tells two police officers, her on-off boyfriend and her boss that she is going to a doctor the next day. I put it to her squarely – the reason was to get them to believe that she had been sexually assaulted,’ he told the jury.

‘You don’t actually go, because you don’t need to, because it hadn’t happened.’ 

Mr Whybrow also referred to claims Ms Higgins made under cross-examination about the period immediately after she went public with her allegations.

On February 15, 2021, two media stories dropped – one was an online story published by News Corp, the other was a TV interview with Lisa Wilkinson on The Project.

Ms Higgins told the court in the first week of the trial that she thought she would do one written interview, one TV interview, before going back to university and getting on with her life as normal.

However, she told the court she was inundated with media requests – to the point where she had to take valium to cope – and said her boyfriend, David Sharaz, sent a timeline of her allegations to two journalists.

The court previously heard Mr Sharaz regretted his actions because his ‘trust was breached’ and the ‘whole press gallery’ ended up with the timeline. 

Bruce Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent. He is pictured outside court on Tuesday

Mr Whybrow told the court on Tuesday: ‘David Sharaz now goes under the bus to say he sent it out in those circumstances.’ 

Under cross-examination, Ms Higgins also told the court the media frenzy was ‘not about me or my story’, but more about two journalists arguing over ‘who got the exclusive’ and who would win journalism awards.

She said Wilkinson was ‘furious’ because The Project interview went to air on a Monday, and she didn’t normally work on Mondays. 

In court on Tuesday, Mr Whybrow said that was another example of Ms Higgins ‘throwing other people under the bus where something is happening that might not suit her.’

Earlier in his closing statement, Mr Whybrow referred the jury to Ms Higgins’ initial insistence she had kept the dress she was allegedly raped in under her bed for about six months before washing it. 

Former Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins and partner David Sharaz are pictured at the ACT Supreme Court in Canberra

She later admitted she was mistaken about that period of time when shown in court a picture of her wearing the dress about two months after the night in question.

‘When she speaks to [police officer] Emma Frizzell on February 6, 2021, she asks about the dress and she says, “I’ve washed it once but I haven’t worn it”,’ he said.

‘But she knows she’s worn it again, and she knows she’s worn it again because she recalls or she’s seen a photograph of her wearing it again.

‘This is a central plank as to whether you accept her evidence beyond reasonable doubt or whether she’s said the first thing that comes to her head.

‘Can you convict this man for something she says he did? There’s no DNA, no medical evidence, and she says things to suit her.’

Mr Whybrow will conclude his closing remarks on Wednesday morning, before the jury retires to deliberate on a verdict.  

During Crown prosecutor Shane Drumgold’s closing statements earlier on Tuesday,  he told the jury Lehrmann took Ms Higgins back to Parliament House on the night he allegedly raped her because ‘it was the most convenient place to get her drunk and confused’.

During his closing arguments on Tuesday, Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow (pictured) claimed to the jury Ms Higgins ‘fabricates’ information

He suggested that was the answer to one of the key questions jury members had to consider – why did Lehrmann and Ms Higgins go to Parliament House that night?

He said the jury also must consider whether they believed Lehrmann and Ms Higgins had sex – and whether it was consensual – as well as whether he was attracted to the alleged victim and if he was ‘reckless’ regarding her consent.

‘[The case is not about] whether young people, whatever gender, have the right to drink what they choose or to be safe. Or whether Ms Higgins likes Linda Reynolds, or about whether parliament house responded adequately,’ he said. 

‘This case is certainly not about the experience of other women in parliament or the “Me Too” movement, media interviews or book deals.’

Mr Drumgold said the case was about ‘what happened on a couch in a room’ on March 23, 2019 – between when Ms Higgins and Lehrmann entered parliament at 1.41am and when the accused left alone at 2.31am.

He told the jury Lehrmann gave various reasons for going back to Parliament House  on the night of the alleged rape, but said he rejected all reasons – ‘except possibly to drink alcohol and get the drunk and vulnerable complainant alone in a room’. 

‘It was the most convenient place to get her drunk and confused… in the hope she would not resist and not remember,’ he said. 

Mr Drumgold questioned why Lehrmann would have left his keys, documents and security pass at work before going out to drinks on a Friday night, knowing he would only have to go back and get them late at night. 

‘Lehrmann said he had to go to Parliament House to get his keys which, in his words, was “normal practice”. He added he would just leave them on his desk so wouldn’t have a lot of things in his pockets,’ he told the jury.

‘Ask yourself, how would he then grab his keys if he left his pass there? He agreed he didn’t have his pass on him – it would force him to sign in to get his keys just to go home.’ 

He also questioned why Lehrmann would go back to parliament to put tabs on a Question Time brief when Question Time was not due to take place the following week – ‘why not wait until Monday?’

Mr Drumgold said Lehrmann claimed in his record of interview with federal police that there was no alcohol in the office because Ms Reynolds was new in the defence portfolio and it was not yet set up. 

However, his former colleague Nicole Hamar told the court last week she worked with Lehrmann in Home Affairs and he had a sizeable amount of alcohol in his office. 

The prosecution said it was ‘unlikely he would throw out a substantial amount of alcohol because he moved offices’.