The tweet Brittany Higgins doesn’t want you to read

Brittany Higgins fired off a tweet late at night falsely accusing Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer of “contempt” over a Twitter post he wrote – before quickly deleting it.

Daily Mail Australia has received an inflammatory social media post Ms Higgins wrote about Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow at 11.41pm on Saturday.

In the tweet, Ms Higgins suggested that Mr Whybrow had committed contempt of court when he published a notice on 7 December about the jury trial of Mr Lehrmann – five days after charges of Mr Lehrmann’s assault were dropped.

Mr Whybrow’s post spoke of a number of elements in the case being considered at the October ACT Supreme Court jury trial.

In her tweet, published four months later, Ms Higgins said it was ‘weird’ that Mr Whybrow was ‘casually tweeting about the Lehrmann case’, adding: ‘Honestly, what the hell is this?’

Mrs Higgins then said: ‘Mr Whybrow has pushed hard to have me charged with contempt of court for doing exactly the same.’

Brittany Higgins has falsely accused Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer of “contempt” over a tweet he wrote last December. She then deleted it

She later deleted that specific comment, but it referred to a speech she gave to TV cameras outside the ACT Supreme Court on Oct. 26, the day Mr. Lehrmann’s trial was aborted for conduct by a juror.

During that speech, Ms Higgins said she was ‘telling the truth’ about her alleged assault under cross-examination and criticized the criminal justice system for being ‘asymmetrical’.

Despite being broadcast live on TV at the time, much of Ms Higgins’ speech could not be published for legal reasons because – although the first trial was halted – Mr Lehrmann was still charged with assault and a new trial was scheduled for February 2023. .

Any comment about Mr. Lehrmann’s guilt or innocence may have biased a jury against him and could have led to a contempt of prosecution.

Mr Whybrow did refer the speech to the court and the Australian Federal Police.

When Shane Drumgold, ACT’s Director of Public Prosecutions, completely dropped the charges against Mr. Lehrmann on December 2, contempt of court was no longer an issue.

Mr Whybrow tweeted about the case five days after the charges were dropped.

Mr Whybrow declined to comment when approached by Daily Mail Australia and Ms Higgins did not respond.

Steven Whybrow is pictured, right, next to Bruce Lehrmann outside ACT Supreme Court in October

The tweet Mr Whybrow responded to on December 7 has since been deleted, but it appears he corrected inaccuracies about the trial posted by another user.

Mr Whybrow wrote: ‘Because politicians didn’t get cleaners (an agreed fact).

Because there was no complaint before 1pm Tuesday (Brittany Higgins own evidence). There are no cameras in ministers’ offices. Images were played arriving and departing,” he wrote.

“Agreed – media crickets… Facts vs good story.”

About 45 minutes after the tweet was shared, Mr Whybrow’s account was changed from public to private, so users who didn’t follow him couldn’t see the tweet she was referring to.

Mrs. Higgins then remarked, “Hahah. Defense counsel Steve Whybrow has now made his tweets private.”

‘Do not worry. I took screenshots,” she said above a screenshot of Mr Whybrow’s December tweet.

Mr Whybrow’s tweet pointed to a number of elements heard in court during the October trial, including that a cleaner was asked to routinely clean the ministerial suite where Ms Higgins was allegedly raped the morning after the alleged attack.

The court heard that the cleaner did not “destroy evidence” by steam-cleaning the carpet or couch on which Ms. Higgins slept.

The court also heard that Ms Higgins had not complained of alleged assault before 1pm on Tuesday 26 March – three days later. CCTV played in court showed Mr Lehrmann and Mrs Higgins exiting the House of Parliament at different times.

Steven Whybrow changed his Twitter profile to private after Ms Higgins’ message. She then posted a screenshot of his December post

Some Twitter users wrote messages of support for Ms Higgins in the comments, but others asked why she retweeted Mr Whybrow’s post from four months ago.

“I’m confused about the ‘bomb’,” said one user.

“It was a tweet from last year, after DPP dropped the charges. Not related to [defamation] case. This is old news, so why the song and dance now?’

In February, Mr Lehrmann filed libel lawsuits against Channel 10, Lisa Wilkinson and news.com.au over two stories in which Ms Higgins claimed a ‘male colleague’ raped her in 2019.

The broadcast and the online article were published on February 15, 2021.

He was not named in the broadcast or the article, but his claim claims that his identity would have been known in political circles.

Mr. Lehrmann’s interlocutory hearing on Thursday dealt with why it took him two years to file the libel suit.

Applicants normally have 12 months from publication to file a libel suit, but Mr. Lehrmann’s suit was filed two years later.

Mr. Whybrow is Mr. Lehrmann’s attorney in the defamation lawsuit. His legal team has been arguing that it was unreasonable for him to start the case earlier.

The interim hearing returns to the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday.