BlinkVib

Brittany Higgins was cross examined by Defence barrister Steve Whybrow during the trial over whether or not Channel 10’s Lisa Wilkinson asked her if she was wearing “panties” on the night she alleges she was raped at Parliament House.

It was a line of questioning that subsequently prompted Chief Justice Lucy McCallum to intervene and observe that there is “a limit”.

It was an issue the defence barrister briefly returned to on Monday during his closing address.

His client, Bruce Lehrmann, has pleaded not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent.

Underwear cross examination

Mr Whybrow had previously told the court it wasn’t the issue of whether or not underwear was worn but the credibility of the complainant of telling a journalist it was when it wasn’t.

“I am asking you, do you agree that Ms Wilkinson – You agree that Ms Wilkinson asked you, ‘So he had removed your panties?’ and you said, ‘Yeah’?,’’ Mr Whybrow had asked Ms Higgins.

She replied it was “a conversation” before the formal interview that aired on Channel 10’s The Project.

“I didn’t sign a stat dec on it. And I’ve corrected the record since,” she said.

Mr Whybrow suggested to Ms Higgins that the original answer implied his client Mr Lehrmann had taken off her “panties”.

“What I am suggesting to you is at that point in time when you said that, you were informing Ms Wilkinson that Mr Lehrmann had taken your underwear off you?” Mr Whybrow said.

“And you indicated to her that Mr Lehrmann had removed your underwear?” Mr Whybrow said.

“No, I never – I’ve never asserted that. I didn’t wear underwear that night,’’ Ms Higgins replied.

“I know that’s salacious and click-baity, or whatever, but I didn’t wear underwear with that dress on the basis that it had lines.

“On a 20-year-old girl, we care about stuff like that. OK? It was stupid.”

“He’d taken my dress off my body. He had not taken my underwear because he could not take my underwear. I was only wearing a bra,’’ Ms Higgins told the court.

Brittany Higgins tells court her ‘dignity’ left the building a long time ago

During the cross examination, Mr Whybrow asked Ms Higgins to read a transcript of her original interview with Ms Wilkinson.

“Were you aware that there was a transcript prepared of the first audio one?’’ Mr Whybrow said.

“No,’’ Ms Higgins replied.

Mr Whybrow asked her to read the transcript.

“But it was wrong. I didn’t wear underwear. I was clearly embarrassed, but that wasn’t the actual interview itself and I didn’t sign a stat dec on this,’’ Ms Higgins said.

“This is just us talking. By that point we were still trying to, you know, feel each other out. But, you know, all airs and graces are gone. I’m only trying to save – my dignity has left the building a long time ago.

“I wasn’t wearing underwear and that is the truth.”

At one point during the cross examination, Chief Justice McCallum interrupted.

“I will move on, your Honour,’’ Mr Whybrow said.

Chief Justice McCallum said: “There comes a limit.”

“Yes,’’ Mr Whybrow replied.

The white dress

In his final argument to the ACT Supreme Court on Monday, Mr Whybrow also returned to the issue of the white dress that Ms Higgins was wearing on the night of the alleged rape.

He referred to Ms Higgins’ evidence she had kept the dress she was allegedly raped in under her bed for about six months before washing it.

During cross examination, he had confronted her with an image of wearing the dress in May 2019 at a dinner with Linda Reynolds in Perth.

“When she speaks to [police officer] Emma Frizzell on February 6, 2021, she asks about the dress and she says, ‘I’ve washed it once but I haven’t worn it’,” he said.

“But she knows she’s worn it again, and she knows she’s worn it again because she recalls or she’s seen a photograph of her wearing it again.

“This is a central plank as to whether you accept her evidence beyond reasonable doubt or whether she’s said the first thing that comes to her head.

“Can you convict this man for something she says he did – there’s no DNA, no medical evidence, and she says things to suit her.

“She’s someone who is unreliable. Who says things to suit her.”

Brittany Higgins a ‘witness of truth’

More Coverage

But the Crown prosecutor Shane Drumgold told the jury Ms Higgins was a credible witness who “did not falter” in her evidence.

“We submit not a single inconsistency in what she said has been revealed,” he said.

“If this is a fabrication. She appears to be quite the actor.”

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7zZqroqeelrlwutKwZJqbpGSwsMHRrapmpJGsfKyx2GanqKGeqcBustGopGaboqTAtHnEsZimoZ6Wwaq7zWamn2WSp7a1wMCnsGagmZy0qrrSaKWer6NiwLW70bJmcnFhbLByspFsaWpxaZqBpYSYnGdxaGmZg6SEkmxubGo%3D