Brittany Higgins has angrily denied “stealing” a Carla Zampatti jacket from the ministerial office she alleged she was raped in, insisting it was “too small” for former defence minister Linda Reynolds and she had been asked to “throw it out”.
Ms Higgins was captured on CCTV leaving Parliament House wearing the black and white jacket at around 10am on the morning of March 23, 2019, after she alleged she had been raped.
She told the Federal Court on Tuesday that she wanted to “cover her body” after she woke up in the minister’s office after the alleged rape.
Ms Higgins insisted she had been asked to take some old jackets that no longer fit Senator Reynolds and donate them to charity.
During Bruce Lehrmann’s trial last year, Ms Higgins said she took the jacket from a “goodwill box” that she intended to donate to charity.
On Tuesday, Ms Higgins insisted she had been asked by the office manager, Michelle Lewis, to take the jacket to a charity shop.
“The Carla Zampatti jacket?’’ Mr Lehrmann’s barrister, Steve Whybrow, asked.
“It was too small for the minister at that time so Michelle Lewis asked me to throw it out,’’ Ms Higgins said.
Mr Whybrow said he wanted to suggest to Ms Higgins that the purported conversation never happened.
“You’re wrong,’’ Ms Higgins replied.
Mr Whybrow insisted there was never a goodwill box that she was asked to donate to charity.
“I’m not a thief,’’ Ms Higgins responded.
“Before I left for Perth during the election, I put the box in my car and took it to a charity bin.
But Mr Lehrmann’s barrister suggested the jacket had been hanging in Ms Reynolds’ office when she took it and was not in a goodwill box.
Ms Higgins insisted CCTV would have confirmed she took a box out of the office.
“It would be in the footage out there,” she told Justice Michael Lee.
“If someone at Parliament House could clear up the fact I’m not a thief, that would be awesome.”
In a statement, Ms Reynolds has previously insisted the jacket was “never returned to me.”
“I can confirm the jacket that Ms Higgins is seen wearing in the security footage is my Carla Zampatti jacket, which was never returned to me,’’ Ms Reynolds said.
As the cross examination continued on Tuesday, Mr Whybrow also asked Ms Higgins if she had ever entered the minister’s office by herself before.
He then asked her if she had ever entered the minister’s office with Mr Ben Dillaway with whom she was “intimate”.
“Have you ever been in there with Mr Dillaway?’’ Mr Whybrow asked.
Ms Higgins denied this.
“I want to suggest that what happened is that you went into that office and were feeling sick and lay down on the couch,’’ Mr Whybrow said.
He asked her if it was “a possibility that you took your dress off before you lay down on the couch”.
“It’s not something that would ever happen,’’ she replied.
“So I don’t know that that’s not true, but I don’t recall. I don’t recall.”
Ms Higgins said she remembered being on the ledge and the next thing she recalled was allegedly being sexually assaulted on the couch.
“So I don’t know how I got to the couch,’’ she said.
Ms Higgins has also revealed, for the first time, how much money she received in a secret compensation from taxpayers.
As her cross examination continued on Tuesday, Mr Lehrmann’s barrister probed Ms Higgins on reports she received more than $3 million.
The Albanese government has previously refused to disclose the settlement, insisting it was “confidential”.
“Yes, I received money from the Commonwealth. They came to an agreement that a failure of a duty of care was made. And they did pay me,” she said.
Ms Higgins said what the offer was on paper and what she actually received after legal fees and taxes were two different things.
She was represented by personal injury lawyer Noor Blumer, of Blumers Lawyers.
“How much money did the Commonwealth pay you to stop you litigating this matter?” Mr Whybrow asked.
“I received $1.9 million,” Ms Higgins replied.
“So you’ve got no idea what your legal costs were or what the gross settlement sum was?” Mr Whybrow asked.
“I think it was around $2.3 million. I think it was the amount and then those taxes and then the lawyer took some, but I’m not sure what that fee was. I was never focused on that fee. It was only what I received that I cared about.”
Ms Higgins accepted that her medical team said she was too sick to give evidence at a second trial.
“And then when it looked like (Mr Lehrmann) wanted to make money off being a rapist, I of course put my hand up and said please put me back in, and here I am,” she said.
Mr Lehrmann denies he raped Ms Higgins.
“You accept as a matter of fact that you’ve made money off being a person who made an allegation of sexual assault,” Mr Whybrow responded.
“That’s true,” she said.
“The Commonwealth admitted that they breached their duty of care and that they didn’t go through proper processes.
“So that’s actually why they settled with me.”
Ms Higgins was also grilled about the speech she gave after Mr Lehrmann’s rape trial collapsed, and was asked if it was an attempt to “blow up” his right to a second trial.
The issue relates to Ms Higgins’ speech on the steps of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on October 27, 2022, immediately following the discharge of the jury for jury misconduct in the criminal case.
The Federal Court has previously heard it followed immediately after Chief Justice Lucy McCallum’s request that the media and others “fall silent” to allow for a fair trial. The first trial collapsed following an allegation of juror misconduct.
“I suggest when you gave that speech, it was designed to blow up a retrial,” Mr Whybrow said.
“Wow,” Ms Higgins responded.
“Not at all.”
“You made it clear that you didn’t think that Mr Lehrmann should have a presumption of innocence?” he asked.
“I don’t think he had a right to my body, but here we are,” Ms Higgins responded.
Ms Higgins also became tearful as she told the court she “tried to commit suicide” during the trial. Justice Lee offered Ms Higgins a short break from cross examination at this point, which she accepted.
Ms Higgins’ speech outside the Supreme Court was played to the Federal Court on Tuesday.
During that speech Ms Higgins fought back tears as she described the justice system as “asymmetrical”.
“I never fully understood the asymmetry of the criminal justice system, but now I do,” she said.
Ms Higgins said that while she was cross-examined at length, she asserted that Mr Lehrmann was “afforded the choice” of remaining silent, and “sat with his head down in a notebook”.
“He never faced one question about his story and the criminal charges,” she said.
“I was required to surrender my telephones, my passwords, messages, photos and my data to him.”
But Mr Lehmann’s barrister put it to Ms Higgins that some of the statements she made, including that Mr Lehrmann’s phone was not seized by police, were untrue.
“You knew that that was not an accurate statement. Didn’t you?” Mr Whybrow said.
“That’s what I believed at the time,” she replied.
“What led you to that belief?’ she was then asked.
“It was just what I believed at the time. I remember asking people, ‘Is he being subjected to scrutiny as well?’” she replied.
Ms Higgins was asked if she was questioning his “right to silence” when accused of a criminal offence by not giving evidence.
“I am not a lawyer,” she responded.
Earlier, Justice Lee ruled he would allow the questions about the speech, noting that Mr Lehrmann’s legal team regarded the matter as an issue of credit, to “impugn Ms Higgins’ credibility”.
“He explained in the absence of the witness that the ultimate proposition he sought to put that was Ms Higgins made false representations,” Justice Lee said on Tuesday morning, a “course of conduct directed to ensuring the rape allegation made by her against Mr Lehrmann’s tasted in civil proceedings, rather than in a further criminal trial”.
“I also took the step of seeking express confirmation from Mr Whybrow that on the material presently in his position, he considers he has a reasonable basis to put the proposition that we seek in spite a series of false representations, in an attempt to avoid a further criminal trial and procure what she perceived was a more favourable forum for the adjudication of the truth of her allegations of rape.”
That is, the standard of proof was lower in a civil defamation trial than a criminal trial.