Lisa grilled on Higgins CCTV ‘conspiracy’ - news.com.au

Welcome to our rolling coverage of Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation suit against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson.

Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson over The Project’s interview with Brittany Higgins in which she alleged she was raped at Parliament House.

Mr Lehrmann is arguing he was defamed by the broadcast that did not name him but he argues identified him.

He strenuously denies the claims and Ms Higgins’ rape trial was aborted with no findings made against him.

Follow the latest news and updates from the hearing today.

‘A conspiracy’: Wilkinson grilled on ‘far-fetched’ claims

Ms Wilkinson has been grilled over whether Ms Higgins’ claim that police could not secure CCTV from Parliament House sounded like “a bit of a conspiracy”.

As her cross examination continued, Ms Wilkinson was grilled on whether some of Ms Higgins claims the CCTV was quietly destroyed sounded “a bit far-fetched” or “conspiratorial.”

“You didn’t challenge Ms Higgins on this, did you?,” barrister Matthew Richardson said.

“You never challenged Ms Higgins, I suggest to you.

“You accepted every part of the allegations she made without question.”

Ms Wilkinson replied: “I reject that.”

Earlier, Mr Richardson said the claim was “peculiar”.

“Do you think the allegation that CCTV footage from Parliament House was not available to Federal Police investigating a rape allegation sounded somewhat peculiar?,’’ Mr Richardson said.

“It was concerning,’’ Ms Wilkinson said.

Ms Wilkinson has been accused of “coaching” Brittany Higgins’ responses to questions and “crossing the line” as a journalist in The Project interview.

The veteran broadcaster strongly rejected the claim, insisting that her suggestions were based on earlier phone calls.

In a five-hour recording, Ms Wilkinson urges Ms Higgins to “speak about the culture”.

“I don’t want to put words in your mouth,’’ she said.

“But if you can enunciate the fact that this place is all about suppression of people’s natural sense of justice, because you see around you the way that this place works.”

Ms Higgins says, “Yes”.

Mr Richardson SC then accused the veteran broadcaster of “crossing the line”.

“I want to suggest that you were attempting to coach Ms Higgins here,’’ Mr Richardson said.

“I disagree,’’ Ms Wilkinson replied.

“It was inappropriate conduct as a journalist,’’ Mr Richardson said.

“I disagree,’’ she replied.

“You crossed the line, Didn’t you?,’’ Mr Richardson said.

“If she had an answer that we thought was a poor answer that wasn’t credible, we would never have put this story to air,’’ Ms Wilkinson said.

The five-hour pre-interview was conducted with Ms Higgins and a Ten producer.

It was recorded and later subpoenaed in the criminal trial and the defamation trial.

‘Just listen’: Judge tells Lisa Wilkinson to stop making ‘speeches’

TV personality Lisa Wilkinson has been accused of portraying Brittany Higgins’ chief of staff Fiona Brown as “vile” and a “monster”.

Ms Wilkinson continued her evidence today as Justice Lee warned her at one point to “listen to the question”.

“Just listen to the questions and give your truthful answer to them and don’t worry about engaging in speeches. Thank you,” Justice Michael Lee said.

It followed a tense exchange where Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer accused her of preparing a program that treated Ms Brown unfairly.

Ms Wilkinson told the federal court that she believed then-minister Linda Reynolds and her chief of staff Ms Brown were part of a “systemic cover up” of Ms Higgins’ rape allegations.

“The impression conveyed by that is that Miss Brown is some kind of vile apparatchik Correct?,” barrister Matthew Richardson asked.

“I totally disagree,” Ms Wiklinson said.

“She comes across as cold and unfeeling,” Mr Richardson said.

“I totally disagree,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

Ms Wilkinson told the Federal Court that “different rules” apply in Parliament House and the police “answer to politicians”.

The veteran broadcaster outlined what she regarded as the “roadblocks” to a police investigation of the rape allegation.

“The internal AFP is its own policing unit within Parliament House,’’ she said.

“And as I say there are different rules that apply in Parliament House.

“The internal police force answers to politicians (and) Parliament’s presiding officers rather than the bosses at the Australian Federal Police.

“So the internal AFP unit that Ms Higgins was directed towards were not at all trained in dealing with survivors of sexual assault.

“They were not the appropriate police for Ms Higgins to be speaking to at that point. So they were an inappropriate police unit.

“And it meant that more delays were happening before Ms Higgins could get to appropriately trained SACAT police who deal with crimes of sexual assault and a rape crisis counsellor.

“That didn’t happen until two weeks after the alleged rape. So that to me, is another roadblock because time is slipping away.

Ms Wilkinson read through a transcript of the programs outlining what she regarded as the “roadblocks”.

“The problem as I discussed before, there were no human resources department in Parliament House. That meant that Ms Higgins had no one she could go to to report what had happened in the early hours of that Saturday morning,” she said.

“So the first person she spoke to was a political adviser who was not trained in taking the statement of a young woman who was alleging she had been sexually assaulted. That was a roadblock.

“She should have been able to go to a human resources department. She was not trained in dealing with survivors of sexual assault.”

‘Superpower’: Wilkinson’s blistering comeback

Ms Wilkinson has been grilled by Justice Michael Lee over her Logies speech and whether or not her praise for Ms Higgins “courage” condemned Mr Lehrmann as a guilty man.

Ms Wilkinson was accused of putting her “pride and ego” ahead of Bruce Lehrmann’s right to a fair trial in the Logies speech.

It was delivered just eight days before the commencement of the rape trial.

“This honour belongs to Brittany, it belongs to a 26-year-old woman’s unwavering courage,’’ she said in the Logies speech.

“It belongs to a woman who said enough. It belongs to a woman who inspired more than 100,000 similarly pissed off, exhausted, fierce women and men to take to the streets right across this country in numbers too big to ignore.”

Mr Lehrmann’s barrister suggested to the broadcaster that “you knew when you said those words that people would know that you believed Ms Higgins?”

“I was celebrating her courage,” she replied.

“I want to suggest to you that irrespective of whatever Mr (Shane) Drumgold or anyone else did or didn’t do, you knew from your own experience that the speech was reckless and ill advised,” Mr Richardson said.

Ms Wilkinson replied, “I disagree.”

“As you stood there on the stage, flanked by your colleagues, with your peers in the audience, was there any part of you that thought this is not an especially brilliant idea,” Mr Richardson asked.

“I did appropriate checks. So no,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“Do you take responsibility for it at all?,” the barrister asked.

“You knew, didn’t you, that you were communicating to hundreds of thousands of people that you believed in Ms Higgins’ allegations.”

“I want to suggest to you that you put your pride and your ego ahead of my client’s right to a fair trial when you gave that speech.”

Ms Wilkinson replied, “I completely disagree.”

Justice Lee then cut in asking: “Would you accept that a woman would not be showing unwavering courage, if she made a false allegation of rape against an innocent man?”

“Yes, I accept that,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“Does it not follow that if you say that someone’s showing unwavering courage, it means they’re making a true allegation of rape against a guilty man?”

“Yes,” Ms Wilkinson said.

At that point, Mr Lehrmann’s barrister asked the veteran broadcaster if that was “something that you knew you ought not to have been saying eight days before a criminal trial was due to commence”.

“No, because I had sought advice before I got up on that stage,” she said.

Mr Richardson said: “There were hundreds of thousands of people who believed Ms Higgins’ allegations.”

She replied: “Mr Richardson, if you can be in the minds of the entire nation, that’s a superpower I don’t possess.”

Wilkinson grilled on political pressure

Mr Lehrmann’s barrister asked if Ms Higgins ever actually articulated anything Senator Reynolds or Ms Brown had done that would have constituted pressure not to go to the police.

“She’s an intelligent young woman who could read between the lines of Mr Richardson,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“So your answer is no, I take it?” Mr Richardson said.

“You’d have to ask me the question again,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“Did she ever articulate any word or any action that constituted on the part of Reynolds, or Brown pressure not to go to the police?,” Mr Richardson asked.

“I thought that Ms Higgins, again, reading between the lines, that’s what I do when I’m a journalist, and I’m interviewing someone, that what Ms Higgins perceived was happening is that on the one hand, they were two very powerful women in parliament house who wanted to make sure she was okay, you know.

“But they were choosing their words every carefully.”

Justice Lee asked if her view would have changed if she knew that Ms Brown had taken Ms Higgins to the police on Monday, April 1, immediately after meeting with Senator Reynolds.

“You thought that Ms Brown and Ms Reynolds were part of a systemic cover up?” Justice Lee asked.

“That’s what I understood you said.

“Do you think it’s consistent with a systemic cover up, to escort someone to an AFP office?”

“I think if Ms Brown had been properly trained in dealing with a survivor of sexual assault, the internal AFP would not have been the place to take them. It should have been properly trained sexual assault police and they were not properly trained in dealing with survivors of sexual assault,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“I believe that they were getting instructions from the Prime Minister’s Office.”

‘Don’t make me sound like a cheap, tabloid journalist’

Ms Wilkinson has fired back at Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer telling him: “Please don’t make me sound like a cheap, tabloid journalist.”

Challenged in the Federal Court over whether she was “captured” by her source, and whether she was excited about the story, Ms Wilkinson said she was offended by the question.

“You were thrilled by the riveting commercial appeal of the story that she told,” Mr Richardson asked.

“Please don’t make me sound like a cheap, tabloid journalist, Mr Richardson,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

Ms Wilkinson was also probed on her comments about Senator Linda Reynolds during a five-hour pre-interview.

“I’m trying to work out who this f**king woman is. I’d never heard of her,” Ms Wilkinson says on the tape.

“I apologise for my language,” she told the Federal Court on Thursday.

But Ms Wilkinson told the court she regarded Senator Reynolds’ conduct as “pretty cheap and nasty”.

She also slammed Senator Reynolds’ decision to bring Ms Higgins back into the room she was allegedly raped to discuss the issue as “deplorable”.

Ms Wilkinson also told the court she never read Ms Higgins’ statutory declaration before the program because it was someone else’s job.

“I just wanted to ask you whether you actually read the statutory declaration,” Mr Richardson said.

“No, obviously I was shown a copy,” she said but she did not read it. “No, I didn’t because there were others in charge of that.”

‘Cover up’ claim questioned

Ms Wilkinson has told the Federal Court that she was concerned the Prime Minister’s office was involved in a “cover up” of Brittany Higgins’ alleged rape allegation.

Shortly after she read a timeline prepared by Ms Higgins’ boyfriend David Sharaz, Ms Wilkinson texted a colleague that the proposed story involved an “extraordinary cover up”.

Then, after watching the initial “cut” of the program before it went to air, Ms Wilkinson told The Project team they were letting Scott Morrison’s political adviser Yaron Finkelstein “off the hook” in an early edit.

Ms Higgins has told The Project that Mr Finkelstein was “checking in” around the time the ABC’s Four Corners aired ‘The Canberra Bubble’ story.

Mr Finkelstein has previously stated he could find no evidence of this phone call occurring.

Ms Higgins has previously stated that he did not raise the ABC story in the call, it simply occurred around the same time.

“Just two things. I would say the fact that (Yaron) Finkelstein checked in the day of the Four Corners Canberra Bubble story is really significant,” Ms Wilkinson wrote in an email to colleagues.

“As opposed to him randomly just checking in to see if she’s okay. At the moment it’s framed to look like he’s checking in is some sort of caring gesture, which according to my conversations with Brittany was definitely not the case. Timing of that call was crucial. At the moment, we are totally letting him off the hook.”

Ms Wilkinson said the claim Mr Finkelstein called “drives home the proximity to the PMO and the fact that it’s not just the rape itself, that is horrifying. It’s the systemic cover up.”

Justice Michael Lee asked Ms Wilkinson what the basis was for the cover-up claim.

Ms Wilkinson mentioned the fact that staff from the Prime Minister’s office were in the office and speaking to chief-of-staff Fiona Brown in the aftermath of the rape allegation.

“I want to suggest to you it was completely unreasonable for you to draw the inference that that meant something sinister,” Mr Richardson said.

“I know how politics works, Mr Richardson,’’ Ms Wilkinson replied.

“I think they were taking orders from the Prime Minister’s Office, whatever those orders were.”

Justice Michael Lee questioned Ms Wilkinson about the claim on Thursday.

“You would agree that would be wicked conduct,’’ Justice Lee said.

“Yes,’’ Ms Wilkinson replied.

Ms Wilkinson was also asked why she didn’t include in the program Mr Sharaz’s claims that Ms Higgins’ motivations included ensuring Mr Lehrmann could not get a good job.

“Didn’t you think it was important for viewers to know about what Mr Sharaz had said about Ms Higgins’ motivation?” Mr Richardson asked.

“Why should Mr Sharaz figure in an interview with Ms Higgins, she’s her own person,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

She also defended a graphic in the story that blurred out a message where chief-of-staff Fiona Brown offered for Ms Higgins to bring her dad to a meeting.

“Unfortunately, Mr Richardson, the vagaries of primetime television mean that there’s a fairly short attention span that viewers have for very, very long messages,” she said.

‘Raising alarm bells’: Bruise photo concerns

Ms Wilkinson has told the Federal Court she had concerns about Ms Higgins’ bruise photo before the story was published.

During her cross examination, Ms Wilkinson said the photo was “raising alarm bells.”

She contacted her producer to say, the wiping of the phone had “alarm bells written all over it”.

Ms Higgins had said her phone was “wiped” and had told The Project she had lost photos and messages.

“But at the same time you knew that she had the bruise photograph?,’’ barrister Matthew Richardson SC asked.

“Yes, correct,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“You saw that as a problem, didn’t you?,” Mr Richardson said.

“I did. The two things didn’t fit together comfortably. I was having trouble marrying the two of them,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“I didn’t understand what Ms Higgins was saying, Mr Richardson. I was confused by it all.”

Ms Wilkinson said she raised concerns with The Project.

She has also told the Federal Court she found Ms Higgins’ claim the government may have wiped her phone “curious” and “strange” but it did not make her question her credibility.

Tense exchange as Lisa Wilkinson grilled

There has been a tense discussion in court when Ms Wilkinson was asked what “background” meant to a journalist.

Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson SC asked: “Do you say the terms ‘background’ and ‘off the record’ mean the same thing to a journalist?”

Ms Wilkinson replied: “When they come from a political adviser, yes.”

Mr Richardson said: “In what circumstance can they mean the same?”

“As journalists, we choose what we are going to use,” Wilkinson said after a brief pause.

Mr Richardson said: “I’m just asking you what background means.”

Wilkinson replied: “It means it’s not to be attributed to the person who [supplied] the secret information.”

Mr Richardson then asked: “You’ve been working in journalism since 1978?”

She agreed.

Mr Richardson then asked whether she had done any professional training about the laws of contempt since she started her career.

“No,” she said.

Mr Richardson asked: “Do you deny having undertaken training at Channel 10 or any previous roles?”

“Yes,” Wilkinson said.

He asked: “Is that seriously your answer?”

She said: “Yes, that’s why I had to think about it.”

Lisa Wilkinson to take to the witness stand

TV personality and former The Project host Lisa Wilkinson will be called to the witness stand today.

It’s understood she will attempt to prove she did everything she could to prepare a fair report for The Project broadcast of the Brittany Higgins’ allegations.

Network 10 producer Angus Llewellyn was cross-examined by Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson SC on Tuesday and Wednesday.

He was grilled about a five-hour recording of a pre-interview where he 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.

More Coverage

“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.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMisAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9uYXRpb25hbC9uc3ctYWN0L2NvdXJ0cy1sYXcvc291bmRzLXBhcmFub2lkLWJyaXR0YW55LWhpZ2dpbnMtYm95ZnJpZW5kLWRhdmlkLXNoYXJhenMtZW1haWwtdG8tbGlzYS13aWxraW5zb24vbmV3cy1zdG9yeS81NWMxNzk0Nzg1NTk2MDVjODdkZTk5NTA0NTNhNmY1ZdIBAA?oc=5

2023-12-14 05:48:45Z
CBMisAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9uYXRpb25hbC9uc3ctYWN0L2NvdXJ0cy1sYXcvc291bmRzLXBhcmFub2lkLWJyaXR0YW55LWhpZ2dpbnMtYm95ZnJpZW5kLWRhdmlkLXNoYXJhenMtZW1haWwtdG8tbGlzYS13aWxraW5zb24vbmV3cy1zdG9yeS81NWMxNzk0Nzg1NTk2MDVjODdkZTk5NTA0NTNhNmY1ZdIBAA

Bagikan Berita Ini