Brittany Higgins: Senior cop claimed he would resign if Bruce Lehrmann was found guilty of rape

Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer says he was told by a senior police officer that he believed the former political staffer was not guilty, an investigation has found.

Defense attorney Steven Whybrow SC made the claim in a statement filed for an investigation into the criminal justice system’s handling of the high-profile case.

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexually assaulting his former colleague Ms Higgins before the trial was aborted due to jury misconduct.

Mr Lehrmann has consistently denied the allegation and the DPP declined to pursue a second trial over concerns over Ms Higgins’ mental health and dropped the charges.

Mr Whybrow said Detective Marcus Boorman had told him that if the jury found guilty he would resign.

“On 25 October 2022, DI Boorman messaged me asking if I could have a chat over a cup of coffee, which I agreed to,” Mr Whybrow said in his signed statement.

“When I saw him, he seemed anxious and agitated and worried that we wouldn’t be seen together in the direct line of sight of the (Director of Public Prosecutions).

“…DI Boorman expressed to me that he was quite upset about this prosecution and believed that Mr. Lehrmann was innocent.

“He made several other comments to this effect and I remember him saying words to the effect ‘if the jury returns a guilty verdict, I resign.”

Mr Whybrow said he had ‘never had a conversation before with a police officer who indicated they were going to resign because they had been instructed to prosecute someone they believed was innocent’.

Mr Whybrow also said in his statement that Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC had called Inspector Boorman and another senior officer, Detective Scott Moller, ‘blockheads’.

Mr Whybrow said the comments were made by Mr Drumgold at the trial as they discussed whether they would be required to testify.

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual assault against his former colleague Ms Higgins before the trial was aborted due to jury misconduct

‘Mr Drumgold SC approached me and, in the context of a discussion about what evidence could be produced from DI Boorman or DS Moller, said: ‘Any opinion of those morons about the strength of this case is inadmissible. ‘.’ said Mr Whybrow.

Mr Drumgold is the first witness to appear for the inquest and has been on the witness stand for the past two days.

The ACT’s top prosecutor told the inquiry that documents that could have been “crushing” to Ms Higgins were not deliberately withheld from Mr Lehrmann’s defense because of his concerns about them.

Mr Drumgold was questioned on Tuesday by counsel assisting the investigation, Erin Longbottom KC, as to why he claimed an investigative document was covered by lawyer’s professional secrecy and should not be provided to the defence.

‘Clearly wrong, clearly wrong,’ said Mr Drumgold, saying he mistakenly believed it was in the exhibit.

The investigative documents contained criticism of Ms Higgins by police, the inquiry was told.

Mr Drumgold was asked by Ms Lubbermans if he felt ‘frustration’ that the documents had been prepared in response to a subpoena.

“I don’t remember being frustrated about it,” Mr Drumgold said.

Barrister Mark Tedeschi and ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold (right) arrive at the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) in Canberra

“It is clear that the document showed a strong bias as a separate document.”

When asked if he was concerned about it being given to the defence, Mr Drumgold said he was concerned it could harm Ms Higgins.

“Well, I didn’t think it should fall into the hands of (the defence) because it essentially says that a senior police officer has drawn certain conclusions about a complainant through a stereotyped, bias analysis,” said Mr Drumgold.

“I mean, it’s potentially horribly damaging to a complainant if that document finds its way to a court.”

Mr Drumgold said he feared it would be ‘crushing’ for Ms Higgins.

“Well, I was concerned that this would be crushing to the complainant,” Mr Drumgold told the inquiry.

When asked if his view of the “crushing” nature of the documents was part of his opposition to their disclosure, he said, “I don’t think so. I mean, it’s nowhere in my entries, my thought processes were in my entries.’

Mr. Lehrmann is not expected to provide evidence for the investigation.