Omnishambles: Higgins and Lehrmann both liars. By Justice Albrechtsen.

Federal Court judge Michael Lee settled on the perfect word to ­describe the long-running saga involving Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann.

After flirting with it as a “cause celebre” that had caused “collateral damage” and taken numerous “unexpected detours”, Lee ­described it more fittingly as an “omnishambles”. …

Lee follows the evidence forensically, scrupulously, fairly. The ­result is that Lee found, on the ­balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann raped Higgins.

Lee found no evidence of a political cover-up about a rape.

Many are celebrating the first finding. Did any of those people encourage Higgins to go to the police, rather than turn a rape allegation into a political conspiracy?

That second finding, rejecting a political cover-up, puts a judicial stake through the dark heart of this rotten scandal — once and for all.

There are many losers from this judgment. …

 

 

Lehrmann:

Lehrmann is the biggest loser. He gambled big and lost the most. As Lee said: “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.” …

Lee couldn’t be clearer: “I reject the entirety of Mr Lehrmann’s account as to what occurred in the ministerial suite.” …

Lee said Lehrmann “hitherto had demonstrated no outward signs of being a workaholic” to add credence to claims of going to the office to jot down some work notes after 1.40am that fateful night.

Based on the evidence, the judge found that Lehrmann was “hellbent on having sex with a woman he: (a) found sexually attractive; (b) had been mutually passionately kissing and touching; (c) had encouraged to drink; and (d) knew had reduced inhibitions because she was very drunk”.

“In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on,” the judge said. …

Lee emphasised that there was a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof. The judge was “not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction upon a criminal charge”.

Higgins:

The judge found that “numerous aspects of the conduct of Ms Higgins in the years following 2019 were far more troubling” than any of the inconsistencies or false statements made in the hours and days after that night in a ministerial office. …

Lee found that the most troubling part “was the way in which Ms Higgins crafted a narrative ­accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint”. …

Lee said Higgins’ account to be replete with “inconsistencies”, “falsities”, particularly her claims against Brown. Lee took aim at “imprecisions” in Higgins’ evidence and her reliance upon “speculation and conjecture.”

The judge found the political cover-up allegations were based on Higgins’ feelings — not facts — noting that the former staffer used “the highly ambiguous word ‘weird’ (or variations, such as people were “acting weirdly”) no less than 82 times” in her initial ­account to The Project team. …

The good:

Fiona Brown is the clearest winner to emerge from this judgment.

In a judgment that offered searing criticism of the evidence given by numerous witnesses, Lee was full of praise for Reynolds’ former chief of staff. …

He noted particularly that she stood up to her superiors when she felt they were suggesting a course of action that may have been in their interests but was not in ­Higgins’ interests nor otherwise appropriate. …

The judge’s resounding praise for Brown’s conduct and evidence suggests to some observers that the commonwealth should be considering paying Brown damages, ex gratia if necessary, for the damage done to her in the course of her employment. …

The money — Higgins’ $2.4m from the commonwealth:

He said it was not his role to look at the process or the propriety of the payment. He was only concerned with her creditworthiness as a witness.

On that score, Lee pointed out that Higgins made several key representations in her settlement deed with the commonwealth that conflicted with Brown’s evidence.

Lee found that “several things being alleged (by Higgins) were untrue.” …

Lee’s damning findings about the false claims Higgins made to procure the payment to her of $2.4m should be front and centre for Justice Paul Brereton, the head of the NACC.

Making false claims to secure money from the commonwealth should always be something the corruption watchdog investigates seriously.

Given this claim was politically beneficial to the then opposition – possibly helping it to win an election – and given new Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus gave directions to Reynolds that prevented Higgins’ claims being tested, Brereton must be on high alert. And Labor should be nervous.

The political types turned a he-said-she-said unprovable rape case into a political fiasco, for their advantage. The winners are the Labor Party at the last election, and Higgins in so much as she received a ridiculously large pot of money (though there might now be a Commonwealth action to take it back). The losers are pretty much everyone else, including Higgins apart from the money.

UPDATE: Bruce Lehrmann flees to police station. By Liam Mendes at The Australian.

Bruce Lehrmann sought refuge in a regional police station after a Federal Court judge found he raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House, with the former Liberal staffer ushered by officers to an undisclosed location due to safety concerns.

It comes as Mr Lehrmann “decided not to appear” at a $100-a-head “Restoring the Presumption of Innocence” conference hosted by men’s rights activist Bettina Ardnt, due to an “extremely aggressive pursuit by media”. …

With freelance photographers following him, Mr Lehrmann drove up Sydney’s M1 motorway and abandoned the car in a No Stopping zone outside the Gosford police station.

Sources have told The Australian the 28-year-old sought the protection of officers at the station, who then drove him to an undisclosed location due to the fears for his safety. …

After the judgment, Mr Lehrmann withdrew as a speaker at the upcoming Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference, which also promised to showcase insights from criminal barristers and academics about how the justice system “no longer offers a fair hearing for men accused of sexual assault”.