>
Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer has accused Brittany Higgins of making up doctor’s appointments and throwing her boyfriend and Lisa Wilkinson “under the bus” after she made her rape allegations public.
The former Liberal staffer is accused of assaulting Ms Higgins, his former colleague, in the parliament building after a night out in March 2019.
He pleaded not guilty to unauthorized sexual intercourse and has a three-week criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court.
During his closing statement on Tuesday, Lehrmann’s attorney Steven Whybrow told the jury that Ms Higgins “makes up” information and blames 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 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) aired
He suggested that Ms Higgins not attending a doctor’s appointment was “a big deal” because “it wasn’t necessary – she wasn’t having sex with anyone.”
“She tells two police officers, her on-off boyfriend and her boss that she’s going to see a doctor the next day. I made it clear to her – the reason was to make them believe she had been sexually assaulted,” he told the jury.
“Actually, you’re not going, because you don’t have to, because it didn’t happen.”
Mr Whybrow also referred to claims Ms Higgins made during a cross-examination about the period immediately after she made her allegations public.
On February 15, 2021, two media stories fell – 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 a written interview, a TV interview, before going back to college and continuing her normal life.
However, she told the court she was inundated with requests from the media – to the point where she had to take Valium to cope – and said her boyfriend, David Sharaz, had sent a timeline of her accusations to two journalists.
The court heard earlier that Mr Sharaz regretted his actions because his “trust was violated” and the “entire press gallery” ended up on the timeline.
Bruce Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent. He will be photographed out of court on Tuesday
Mr Whybrow told the court on Tuesday: ‘David Sharaz is now going under the bus to say he sent him in those circumstances.’
During a cross-examination, Ms. Higgins also told the court that 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 interview with The Project aired on Mondays, and normally she didn’t work on Mondays.
In court on Tuesday, Mr Whybrow said this was another example of Ms Higgins ‘throwing other people under the bus where something happens that may not suit her’.
Earlier in his closing statement, Mr Whybrow referred the jury to Ms Higgins’ initial insistence that she kept the dress in which she allegedly had been raped under her bed for about six months before washing it.
Former Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins and partner David Sharaz pictured at the ACT Supreme Court in Canberra
She later admitted that she was mistaken about that period when she saw a photo in court of her wearing the dress about two months after the night in question.
‘when she talks to’ [police officer] Emma Frizzell on Feb. 6, 2021, she asks about the dress and she says, “I washed it once, but I didn’t wear it,” he said.
“But she knows she’s worn it again, and she knows she’s worn it again because she remembers it or because she saw a picture of her wearing it again.
“This is a central point about whether you accept her evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or whether she said the first thing that comes to mind.
“Can you condemn this man for something she says he did? There’s no DNA, no medical evidence, and she’s saying things that fit 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 that Lehrmann took Ms Higgins to the parliament building the night he allegedly raped her because “it was the most convenient place to get her drunk and confused.”
During his closing statement on Tuesday, Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow (pictured) alleged to the jury that Ms Higgins was “inventing” information.
He suggested that this was the answer to one of the most important questions for jurors to consider – why did Lehrmann and Mrs. Higgins go to the parliament building that night?
He said the jury should also consider whether they believed Lehrmann and Ms Higgins had sex — and whether it was consensual — and whether he was attracted to the alleged victim and whether he was “reckless” regarding her consent.
‘[The case is not about] whether young people, regardless of their gender, have the right to drink whatever they want or to be safe. Whether Mrs Higgins likes Linda Reynolds, or whether the House of Representatives has responded appropriately,” he said.
“This case is certainly not about the experiences 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 23 March 2019 – between the time Ms Higgins and Lehrmann entered Parliament at 1.41am and the time when the accused left alone at 2.31am .
He told the jury that Lehrmann gave several 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 leave the drunk and vulnerable complainant alone in a room.” to get’.
“It was the best place to get her drunk and confused… in the hopes that she wouldn’t resist and remember,” he said.
Mr Drumgold wondered why Lehrmann would have left his keys, documents and security card at work before going out for a drink on Friday night, knowing he would only have to go back and collect them late at night.
Lehrmann said he had to go to the parliament building to collect his keys, which in his words was ‘normal practice’. He added that he would just leave them on his desk so he wouldn’t have a lot of stuff in his pockets,” he told the jury.
“Ask yourself, how would he get his keys if he left his pass there? He agreed that he didn’t have his pass with him – it would force him to log in to get his keys to go home.”
He also wondered why Lehrmann would go back to parliament to discuss a short Question Time, when Question Time would not take place the following week – ‘why not wait until Monday?’
Mr Drumgold said that in his report of the federal police interview, Lehrmann claimed that there was no alcohol in the office because Ms Reynolds was new to the defense portfolio and it had not yet been established.
However, his former colleague Nicole Hamar told the court last week that she worked with Lehrmann in the Interior and that he had a hefty amount of alcohol in his office.
The prosecution said it was “unlikely that he would throw away a significant amount of alcohol because he had moved from office”.