Table of Contents
David Sharaz’s involvement in Brittany Higgins’ life has been singled out as the turning point when her story went from being about rape allegations to a broader political conspiracy.
Judge Michael Lee named Ms Higgins’ fiance 111 times in his 324-page ruling on Monday, which marked the end of Bruce Lehrmann’s long-running defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.
Sharaz obtained that extraordinary number of references even though he was not a party to the court case, was not a witness and never entered the courtroom during the month-long hearing last December.
Judge Lee ruled on Monday that Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins in Parliament on March 23, 2019 and Network Ten was wrong to tell viewers that political forces prevented him from reporting her rape to police in its special episode of Project.
The court found there was no political cover-up, noting that Higgins only began suggesting there might be such a political conspiracy when he met the divorced Sharaz in 2020, a year after his assault.
When Judge Lee asked why Sharaz would not take the stand during the trial, Network Ten said he did not know Higgins when she was raped in 2019 and therefore his evidence was not relevant.
But the judge expressed frustration with that response, comparing Sharaz to the prophet Elijah. “There’s a place for him at the table, but he never shows up,” she said.
Brittany Higgins is pictured with David Sharaz in April 2021, after going public with her rape allegations.
David Sharaz is pictured outside court with Brittany Higgins in Perth in March
return point
Judge Lee found that Ms Higgins made genuine statements about her assault to her father in phone calls and messages in February 2020, during which there was no discussion of a conspiracy.
He said the communications with his father were strong because they occurred before ‘the person later charged with responsibility for “introducing” the cover-up project, Mr. Sharaz, entered his life on May 29, 2020.’
Discussions about Mr Sharaz’s involvement in Ms Higgins’ story began at the sentencing under the heading “The development of the cover-up narrative”.
“The articulation of the central aspects of this claim began shortly before Ms. Higgins’ boyfriend, Mr. Sharaz, made arrangements for Ms. Higgins to tell her story,” the judgment said.
Sharaz hand-picked Wilkinson as one of two journalists to whom Higgins would tell his story and became a conduit between them, even co-authoring a chronology of his assault to display in the press gallery.
Judge Lee did not accept Ms Higgins’ evidence that she wrote the document alone, partly because there were points where she was referred to in the third person.
In January 2020, Sharaz sent Wilkinson an email with the striking title ‘Me Too, Liberal Party, Project Pitch’ and immediately began telling him about a government conspiracy.
He wrote: ‘I have a sensitive story surrounding a sexual assault in Parliament; a woman who was pressured by the Liberal Party and a cabinet minister not to do so. She has asked me to be the one to tell the story this year.
He then sent her the timeline in an email titled “everything you need,” with another conspiracy claim.
“I’m sending this on Britt’s behalf, simply because, and this sounds paranoid, we just don’t know who might be watching her closely,” he wrote.
Wilkinson later referred to the situation as “an extraordinary cover-up” involving Ms Higgins’ former parliamentary bosses, Senators Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash.
Lisa Wilkinson is pictured, right, with her lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC after winning her defamation case on Monday.
The project’s producer, Angus Llewellyn, is pictured outside court during the trial in December.
erased phone
Sharaz accompanied Higgins to an in-person meeting with Wilkinson and her The Project producer Angus Llewellyn on January 27, 2021, approximately two weeks before their television interview aired.
During that meeting, which was recorded at the time and played in court, Sharaz showed a photograph of a bruise on Higgins’ leg that she apparently suffered during her rape.
It was then suggested that Higgins’ phone had been remotely wiped, possibly by the government in an attempt to prevent him from making a formal complaint to the police, but the photo somehow survived.
Wilkinson didn’t buy the idea that her phone was remotely wiped, but she did seem to believe that politicians and political staff actively tried to stop Higgins from reporting her rape.
Judge Lee found that Ms Higgins had probably been mistaken in thinking the bruise photo came from the rape itself. There was no metadata to suggest the photo existed before the morning of her first meeting with Wilkinson and Mr Llewellyn.
Higgins reported her rape to police following her television interview in February 2021, after which she was asked to hand over her phone to investigators so they could download its contents.
Before handing it over, he texted Mr Sharaz to say he was “cleaning my phone before the police.”
He began sending audio clips to Sharaz, including a covert recording of a meeting with his former boss Michaelia Cash.
“From Mr. Sharaz’s response, it appears that the specific audio that was sent to him on May 21 was a covertly recorded conversation, and he calmed her down and there was some discussion about whether she could trust the police,” the police said. Judge Lee.
The judge said some material from her phone may have been lost due to faulty transfers between devices, but added: “It is more likely that she curated data because she thought removing some of the material helped her maintain the forcefulness of her phone.” [rape claims].’
Bruce Lehrmann appears in court on Monday, after losing his defamation case on Monday.
‘Willfully blind’
During the five-hour meeting, Mr Sharaz could clearly be heard saying he wanted Ms Higgins’ interview to come out at a specific time to put pressure on the coalition government.
He listed “friendly” Labor leaders who would raise the issue during the Senate estimates.
During his evidence, The Project producer Mr Lewellyn had told the court that he did not believe Mr Sharaz was politically motivated, nor did he think to question his motives at all.
In his judgment, Judge Lee said Sharaz had the right to believe there was a conspiracy and to push the matter before politicians, but noted that experienced journalists should have investigated the matter.
“Any journalist who did not think he had a motivation to inflict immediate political harm would have to be willfully blind,” the judge said.
Lehrmann filed a lawsuit over Ms. Higgins’ interview on The Project in February 2021.
He was not named in that broadcast, but claimed friends and colleagues were able to identify him as Ms Higgins’ rapist. He strongly denied raping Mrs Higgins and launched a defamation action in a bid to clear her name.
However, on Monday, Judge Lee found that Lehrmann took Ms Higgins back to a “secluded place”, the ministerial suite, after a night out with colleagues in order to have sex with her.
He said Lehrmann was “intent” on having sex with Ms Higgins, knew she was very drunk and did not consider whether she consented to sex.
In his judgment, Judge Lee said Ms Reynolds and her chief of staff, Fiona Brown, did not attempt to cover up Ms Higgins’ rape allegations.