‘Strong forces’ at play after Higgins’ rape allegation against Bruce Lehrmann

“Strong political forces” were bearing down on Brittany Higgins long before the world heard allegations she was raped by fellow Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

Weeks of evidence in the ACT Supreme Court have exposed more than just a boozy and toxic culture inside of the so-called Canberra bubble.

The court heard of hidden “information flows” between political leaders and police, allegations of “cover ups” driven by party loyalty and even an attempt by a former cabinet minister to reach into the trial itself.

And at the centre of it all was a bombshell allegation, strenuously denied, of a rape inside Parliament House.

On Thursday morning, after five days of deliberation, the jury in the trial was sensationally discharged over an act of misconduct, and a mistrial was declared.

Mr Lehrmann had pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without Ms Higgins consent and being reckless to her consent.

He denies ever having sex with Ms Higgins.

During the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the political pressures Ms Higgins said she was under in order to drop her rape complaint. The jury heard she was aware “cognisant of (the) party implications” of coming forward.

On the final day of evidence a question from crown prosecutor Shane Drumgold cut through to the core of the rumblings that have surrounded Ms Higgins case since she went public with her allegation.

“Are you familiar with the term ‘plausible deniability’?”

The question, put to Australia’s former Attorney-General Michaelia Cash by the crown prosecutor, was met with a pregnant pause.

“I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, you’d need to put it into context,” she responded.

Who knew what, and when?

Ms Higgins repeatedly told the court she disclosed her allegation to her managers in the two Liberal ministerial offices she worked in between 2019 and 2021. She said both of those cabinet ministers, Senators Cash and Reynolds, were also aware.

Both ministers, and chiefs of staff Fiona Brown and Daniel Try, dispute Ms Higgins’ account.

Ms Higgins told the court she believed the prime minister’s office was aware of the incident.

Following her two initial meetings with then-chief of staff Ms Brown following the incident, she had observed two prime ministerial staff – John Kunkle and Daniel Wong – “coming in and out” of the office.

Both men were listed by the prosecution as witnesses early in the trial but were struck off the list as proceedings continued.

Shock development in Bruce Lehrmann trial

Ex-boyfriend Ben Dillaway told the court he had reached out to former PMO staffer Julian Leembruggen less than two weeks after the incident in hopes it would give Ms Higgins faster access to support services.

“She’d tried to see a psychiatrist and the wait was two months or three months or something and I said, ‘Let me discreetly go speak to someone in the Prime Minister’s office because surely this can move things along, or surely this will get you the help you need,’” Mr Dillaway said in court.

The court also heard the Australian Federal Police had disclosed to politicians about the allegation.

On the witness stand, Linda Reynolds told the court she’d received what she described as a “courtesy call” from AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Close on the same day Ms Higgins first met with police in the basement of Parliament House.

Ms Close informed them that her employee was going ahead with a police complaint, Senator Reynolds said.

The second disclosure, Ms Higgins said, was to then-home affairs Minister Peter Dutton in 2021.

She told the court she was terrified after he publicly revealed “baseline” information about her case before she had given her first evidence in chief interview.

“I was pretty terrified,” she told the court, breaking down in tears. “I know how information flows within the ministerial wing and I know that’s not siloed. I was very, very scared.”

Senator Reynolds was the last witness to be called.

She maintained the meeting she had with Ms Higgins in the office where she alleged the incident occurred was to discuss the security breach of her employee entering parliament after hours.

Senator Reynolds told the court she was not aware her employee was found naked by security in her office until that meeting.

Senator Reynolds said she told her “I’m not a trained counsellor and I’m not the person to be having this conversation with”.

Inside a Canberra courtroom more than two years later, Senator Reynolds did not accept she was aware Ms Higgins had recalled Mr Lehrmann of being “on top of her” to Ms Brown ahead of that meeting.

She also denied the allegation would have been “politically embarrassing” for her if it were to have been made public in the lead up to the 2019 election.

However, two hours into her former employee’s cross-examination, Senator Reynolds fired off a text to the defence barrister, Steven Whybrow.

“Hi, do you have the daily transcripts? If so, are you able to provide my lawyer?” it said.

A minute later she sent off another text advising the messages between Ms Higgins and another former member of her staff, Nicole Hamer, could be “revealing”.

She was accused of attempting to “coach” the defence mid-trial by the crown prosecutor.

All the while, her partner sat in the back of the courtroom listening to the trial. Senator Reynolds told the court her lawyer was “very clear” to not discuss the trial with him.

“If you’re interested enough to text my friend from Perth and … we don’t have an election pending, I’m suggesting that back on April 01, 2019 when you’re meeting with Brittany Higgins you’re very politically invested in what’s happening in that room,” Crown prosecutor Shane Drumgold said.

“Absolutely not. I categorically reject that assertion,” she hit back.

Fellow West Australian Senator Cash and her chief of staff Mr Try both rejected suggestions of a political cover up of the allegations.

“The first time that she mentioned a sexual element was I think in the conversation on the 5th of February 2021,” Senator Cash said.

That conversation, Ms Higgins told the court, was “the weirdest phone call” she’d had in her life, and she recorded it without the senator’s permission.

Later, Senator Cash agreed with Mr Whybrow that it would have been “political suicide” to try and cover up a sexual assault between two staff.

In the year since Ms Higgins went public with her allegation, her story has triggered a wider conversation about politics and the culture inside Parliament House.

In her instructions to the jury, chief justice Lucy McCallum acknowledged the case had become a “cause célèbre” with a “momentum of its own”.

The jury was asked to put aside any preconceptions they may have had about the case to consider if the prosecution had proven their case against Mr Lehrmann beyond a reasonable doubt.

In his closing argument, the crown prosecutor described Ms Higgins as a young lady caught between “strong political forces”.

But ultimately, as Mr Drumgold said, “this is a case about what happened on a couch in a room”.

Mr Lehrmann has been ordered to front court again in February 2023, and a new trial date is expected to be set.

He cannot contact Ms Higgins or her family among other bail conditions.