Lisa Wilkinson is pictured giving her Logies speech last year
Controversial comments made by a top prosecutor following Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial have been compared to Lisa Wilkinsons’s disastrous Logies speech that delayed the case and caused the ‘utter destruction’ of her career.
The comparison was made on Monday by former judge Walter Sofronoff, who is leading a Board of Inquiry into the conduct of police and ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, during the jury trial in October.
Mr Lehrmann was accused of raping Brittany Higgins in Parliament House when they were colleagues in 2019. He has always maintained his innocence.
The first trial was abandoned due to misconduct by a juror. On December 2 last year, Mr Drumgold made a public comments to say he was dropping the case entirely due to concerns over Brittany Higgins’ mental health.
During that speech, Mr Drumgold said: ‘Before concluding, during the investigation and trial, as a sexual assault complainant, Ms Higgins has faced a level of personal attacks that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work.’
‘She has done so with bravery, grace and dignity, and it is my hope that this will now stop, and Ms Higgins will now be able to heal.’
During the inquiry on Monday, Mr Lehrmann’s defence barrister Steven Whybrow said he was concerned about the prosecutor’s comments because, he said, it implied Ms Higgins was a victim rather than an alleged victim.
Mr Sofronoff said: ‘It just struck me, as I was staring at paragraph fifteen [of Mr Drumgold’s speech], that the last sentence is very similar to what Ms Wilkinson said.’
Pictured: Shane Drumgold telling the media on December 2 that case against Mr Lehrmann was dropped
‘Yes,’ Mr Whybrow said.
During her Logies acceptance speech in June last year, Wilkinson said: ‘Not only do I believe her, but she’s brave and extraordinary and she’s the most important thing that’s ever happened to me and I’m proud of bringing forward her allegation.’
She was widely criticised for her comments, which ultimately caused the trial to be moved from June to October for fear it would bias a jury against Mr Lehrmann.
The TV host claimed she was not adequately warned against mentioning Ms Higgins in the speech – she recalled reading the first section of her prepared speech, but Mr Drumgold cut her off and said ‘I am not a speech writer’.
Last week, Mr Drumgold was cross-examined by Wilkinson’s lawyer Sue Chrysanthou about a meeting he had with the TV host and a lawyer from Channel 10 on June 15 – four days prior to the Logie awards.
There was a post-Logies hearing in the ACT Supreme Court to address the speech, during which Mr Drumgold handed a file note to Chief Justice Lucy McCallum about the meeting with Wilkinson and her lawyer.
According to the file note, Wilkinson barely read any of her speech to him during the meeting, but he felt she was adequately warned against mentioning Ms Higgins in her speech.
Mr Drumgold submitted the file note to the court as contemporaneous, meaning he made it immediately following the meeting.
Brittany Higgins (pictured left outside court) alleged Mr Lehrmann raped her. He denies the allegations
However, under cross-examination last week, Mr Drumgold admitted that the note was not contemporaneous, but was actually made days after the meeting and that his recollection of events may have been skewed.
Mr Drumgold told the inquiry he formed the view that Wilkinson understood his warning because Wilkinson and her lawyer put their Microsoft Teams meeting on mute and had a private conversation.
Ms Chrysanthou asked: ‘Did you read their lips?’
Mr Drumgold: ‘No’.
Read Related Also: N-Dubz star Fazer reveals he’s welcomed twins with girlfriend Ashley and gives adorable first look
Ms Chrysanthou: ‘Then how could you have possibly made that conclusion?’
Mr Drumgold: ‘Because an experienced journalist sitting next to a lawyer would have come to that conclusion.’
Ms Chrysanthou eventually said: ‘The answer you just gave is illogical and irrational and contrary to human experience.’
In a series of emails released by the inquiry, Mr Drumgold was asked to clear Wilkinson’s name and make a public statement to say she was not in contempt of court, and that she had tried to ask him for advice about her speech.
Ms Chrysanthou further submitted that Mr Drumgold caused the ‘destruction’ of Wilkinson in submitting the file note which he said was contemporaneous, but wasn’t.
Mr Drumgold eventually conceded he should have made a statement to clear her name. But he never did.
On Monday, Mr Whybrow told the inquiry he took issue with Mr Drumgold’s remarks about Ms Higgins’ ‘bravery’ because, in his view, Mr Drumgold did not afford the same considerations to Mr Lehrmann.
‘He’s supposed to be an objective minister of justice and he could arguably have said “no doubt this has had a significant impact on Mr Lehrmann whose had his life turned upside-down”,’ Mr Whybrow said.
Bruce Lehrmann (left) is pictured outside court with his defence lawyer, Steven Whybrow
During the inquiry last week, Mr Drumgold said those remarks at the end of his speech were ‘burned into my memory’
Erin Longbottom, the counsel assisting the inquiry, said: ‘Did you turn your mind to the impact that statement might have on Mr Lehrmann, who was entitled to the presumption of innocence?’
‘Possibly not as much as I should have,’ Mr Drumgold replied.
Later on Monday, Mr Whybrow was questioned by Mr Drumgold’s lawyer Mark Tedeschi over his comments to police officer Emma Frizzell who conducted Ms Higgins’ initial police interviews.
After watching Ms Higgins’ second police interview, Mr Whybrow said to Ms Frizzell: ‘You did a better job in that second interview of cross-examining Ms Higgins than I ever could.’
He then told the inquiry it was inappropriate for a police officer to cross-examine a complainant.
‘You were complimenting Ms Frizzell on her second interview by cross-examining her in a better way than you could – do you mean what you said?’ Mr Tedeschi asked.
‘In my view, the second interview was devastating to the complainant,’ Mr Whybrow replied.
The defence lawyer maintained that police would not tell him whether they believed Mr Lehrmann was innocent or guilty, even though he tried to illicit those responses from them.
He said it was not unusual to ‘engage in banter’ with officers to gauge their opinions, but said most wouldn’t respond the way he wanted them to.
However, Mr Whybrow did recall Destective Inspector Boorman had a ‘moral trauma’ while the jury were deliberating in October, before the trial was abandoned.
Earlier it was revealed the same detective was convinced Mr Lehrmann wa innocent, to the point where he vowed to resign if he was convicted.
The inquiry will continue on Tuesday.
