Brittany Higgins’ boyfriend David Sharaz warned Lisa Wilkinson that he needed to contact the broadcaster on her behalf because “this sounds paranoid … we just don’t know who might be keeping a close eye on her”.
A former press gallery journalist, Mr Sharaz’ email pitch to Ms Wilkinson was published by the Federal Court this week. It included a 17-page “timeline” document featuring claims about various political staffers and MPs who he said “knew” of the allegation.
Ms Wilkinson, who is represented by barrister Sue Chrysanthou, will give evidence for the first time on Thursday.
“Thank you for your time over the phone today, and your sensitivity around what I truly feel is an injustice,’’ Mr Sharaz wrote.
“I’m sending this on behalf of Britt, purely because, and this sounds paranoid, we just don’t know who might be keeping a close eye on her.
“As discussed, we’re happy for you to send this to your producer (and thank you for speaking to your EP [executive producer] for us).”
Mr Sharaz also discussed the timing of the story and why Ms Higgins’ preference was for the story to be published when parliament was sitting.
“Brittany really needs to be out of the Parliament House when both the story breaks, and the police report is relaunched,’’ he said.
Mr Sharaz also noted that he had looked up the ACT Policing crime (statistics) for 2019 and “there was one reported sexual assault during the time Britt’s incident occurred.”
He informed Ms Wilkinson that if she wanted to contact Ms Higgins she should call him.
“You can always chat to me over the phone if you need more, and I can put Britt on,’’ he said.
“Thanks again, David Sharaz.”
Higgins’ fiance’s ‘stalking’
The Federal Court has heard that Mr Sharaz later told a Channel 10 producer that “I’ve done some stalking” and then provided him with contact details for his partners’ alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
Ten producer Angus Llewellyn told the court on Wednesday that Brittany Higgins’ now fiance gave him Mr Lehrmann’s contact details.
“I’ve done some stalking. Don’t ask me how I got them,’’ Mr Sharaz says in the email.
‘Coming for you’ email allegation
The Federal Court has separately heard last month that Bruce Lehrmann received a mysterious, threatening email headed “Coming for you” and suggesting he “think about what you did”, the month before Brittany Higgins went public with her allegation.
During re-examination by his barrister Steven Whybrow in the defamation trial, Mr Lehrmann was asked whether, in hindsight, he had formed a view about the source of the email.
“I have a view that that was Ms Higgins’s fiance, Mr David Sharaz,” Mr Lehrmann said.
The email was sent by a “Bruce Lehrmann”, but Mr Lehrmann told police the Outlook address from which it came was not his.
Sent at 11.11pm on January 25, 2021, the email begins: “Bruce, A woman spoke about what happened to her tonight, and she’s Australian of the Year”.
Grace Tame had just been named Australian of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of survivors of sexual assault.
“I want you to think about what you did, and what might be around the corner for you. It’s inspiring when justice is delivered and the truth comes out. You know what they said: The truth will set you free.
“How many people know what you did, and how many did you tell. How many cameras are in Parliament House and how many people tracked down the vision.
“Think about it. Two former staffers from Aussies, now security guards. It’s going to be a magical 2021.”
A second email was also sent with the subject line: “Truth will come out”.
Sharaz in “bombshell” covert recording
It emerged on Monday that Brittany Higgins’ lawyer Leon Zwier and Mr Sharaz were secretly recorded at a Sydney bar last week discussing how Ms Higgins could answer cross examination questions about her secret $2.4 million payout.
Mr Zwier has strongly denied that he was coaching his client through her fiancee David Sharaz – which is strictly prohibited during cross examination. He told Sky News his comments were made on the common understanding that no one would speak to Ms Higgins about her testimony.
On the tape, Mr Zwier discusses with Mr Sharaz how long answers should be.
“Listen to the question and keep your answers short,” Mr Zwier said.
“But be careful. She can’t be a different person in the witness box.”
Mr Sharaz replied: “No, no, I know. “She compartmentalises” and Mr Zwier responds “She’s not traumatised. She’s not sobbing. She’s not crying.”
Mr Sharaz said that “when she talks about her actual rape she does (cry and become emotional), and surely (the judge) can see that.”
“When she’s giving her defence it comes across as so deliberate,” to which Mr Sharaz responds “it was deliberate because if she was going to blow-up her life … and change the parliament, she wanted to make sure it landed.”
Ten denies Mr Sharaz was “politically motivated”
On Thursday, Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister then asked the Ten producer whether he thought that Mr Sharaz was politically motivated.
Angus Llewellyn told the court that he did not believe he was motivated by politics.
The Federal Court has previously heard that Mr Sharaz told Lisa Wilkinson that he had a “friend” on the Labor side, Katy Gallagher, who could “probe the situation and keep it going” in parliament.
Mr Richardson asked: “You knew Mr Sharaz attempted to assist the then-opposition in pursuing this in parliament?”
“Maybe?’’ Mr Llewellyn replied.
“Is that a serious answer? I’m asking for your opinion at the time,’’ Justice Lee said.
Mr Llewellyn said he didn’t know he was definitely going to talk to Katy Gallagher.
Mr Richardson suggested that Mr Sharaz had a “political agenda”.
“I don’t think he had,’’ he replied.
The Project accused of ‘doing a number’ on Lehrmann
Ms Higgins told Ms Wilkinson and her producer that she thought she “could win” if she was ever sued by Mr Lehrmann for defamation over the rape allegation but she wasn’t sure he would be convicted if the test was a criminal trial and beyond reasonable doubt.
As the cross examination of Mr Llewellyn continued, he was grilled about a five-hour recording of a pre-interview where they discussed the defamation risks associated with the story.
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister also accused The Project of “doing a number” on his client and not being serious about his side of the story a proposition a Ten producer dismissed as “ridiculous”.
The pre-interview discussion included Mr Llewellyn, Ms Wilkinson, Mr Higgins and Mr Sharaz.
“Yeah, I mean, when it comes to defamation, his reputation is clearly going to be lowered by being called a rapist,’’ Mr Llewellyn says on the recording.
Ms Higgins then tells the group that she thought she had a better chance in a civil court.
“If he wants to go after me, like on a civil basis, I think, on the balance of probabilities, I think I could win,’’ she said.
“I think it’s – if the onus of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, I think that would be different. I don’t think I could win that.”
Mr Lehrmann was ultimately charged over the allegation, but never convicted. The trial was aborted before the jury could reach a unanimous verdict following an allegation of juror misconduct.
In the recording, the Ten producer discussed the defamation risk in the story.
“My feeling is that if we didn’t name him, and still, we may as well have named him right because so many people would be able to identify from the position, and that kind of stuff and you know various ways with,’’ he said.
Matthew Richardson SC then asked the producer about how much time he gave Mr Lehrmann to respond.
“I want to suggest that what you were saying to Mr Sharaz and Ms Higgins was don’t worry, we’ll do a number on Bruce Lehrmann,’’ he said.
Are you finished?
During the producer’s testimony on Wednesday, Mr Lehrmann’s barrister has interjected, “Are you finished” after several answers.
“I suggest to you, Mr Llewellyn, that there was no real possibility that in a matter of hours, The Project would have had time to re-cut what had already been laboriously put together since Ms Higgins gave her interview,’’ barrister Matthew Richardson asked.
“No. We’re a daily news show. We do stuff all the time. Very quickly. We do a combination of long form and short form. So we are super agile,’’ the producer replied
“Are you finished?’’ the barrister interjected.
“I answered your question,’’ the producer replied.