Andrew L. Urban
Was the Commonwealth negligent to pay Brittany Higgins $2.4 m in response to her claims that have now been found to be false by two judges, and will the commonwealth take steps to recoup the taxpayers’ money, asks lawyer/columnist Janet Albrechtsen (The Australian, Sept 3, 2025).
Albrechtsen isn’t the only one asking. In the wake of Justice Paul Tottle having found that Higgins did defame Linda Reynolds, after Higgins’s claims against Reynolds and Brown were, at minimum, highly contestable and, as Justice Michael Lee found, false?
Albrechtsen doesn’t widen her questions to include the settlement Reynolds paid complete with an apology, for a private comment calling Higgins a “lying cow” in reference to the very same issues that have been found to be, indeed, lies.
A pertinent question Albrechtsen lists at question No 2 (of 7), is: “What regard, if any, did the commonwealth and its various legal and bureaucratic advisers have for the evidence given in the criminal trial of Bruce Lehrmann that occurred prior to the settlement or to the evidence held in its own files, concerning the treatment of Higgins by Reynolds and Brown? In particular, did it review the evidence given by Brown and Reynolds in the criminal trial, or its internal emails from Lauren Barons from the Department of Finance and others that contradicted Higgins’s claims about her treatment by Reynolds and Brown? If the commonwealth and its advisers paid no regard to that evidence that contested Higgins’s claims, why not?”
And she points out that “It’s not too late for the NACC and the Auditor-General to demand answers to these questions either.
After Tottle’s findings that some of Higgins’s key claims about a political cover-up and lack of support involving Reynolds and Brown were not merely false but “dishonest”, isn’t it time for the NACC to reopen its investigation into the payment to Higgins?”
You’d have to be a Labor minister not to agree with Albrechtsen….
Will NACC conduct a further investigation into the compensation payment? The Preliminary Investigation (https://www.nacc.gov.au/news-and-media/public-disclosure-preliminary-investigation-settlement-higgins-and-cth) includes:
“Whether Ms Higgins made misrepresentations during the negotiations is not within the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction, as at the relevant time she was not a Commonwealth public official. That question therefore was not and could not be covered by this preliminary investigation.” Which body, then, would be responsible for reviewing misrepresentations in a statement of claim paid out by tax payers?
It’s been horrifying to read some of the stalking/menacing style tweets made by D Sharaz in relation to L Reynolds – as outlined in Justice Tottle’s judgement. And how B Higgins were telling him what topics to tweet or not tweet. The timeline is revealing and includes a text message to their friend M Fisk (his wife an ALP ops manager – Higgins had disclosed allegation to them Aug 2020) – 2 Feb 2021 in relation to the Project story. “Haha Britt and I have gone for dinner. It . . . went. A very strange experience which will ultimately target two cabinet ministers, senior staff in the PM’s office and the PM himself. Weird. Very weird.
Yes, excellent question re who will investigate the compensation payout? Or will it be buried by a brazen and compromised Labor government?
Andrew. Darryl Beamish was sentenced to death – instead spent 15 years in prison when totally innocent – convicted using a false confession written for him by the future WA police commissioner-
After 50 years he was compensated for this bastardary with the grand sum of
$425,000. (after 50 years)
That being so – the payment to Higgins seems extraordinarily hasty .
More than just extraordinary – bloody amazing in its ineptitude .
The compensation for blatant police and prosecutor dishonesty leading to conviction and prison time should be set in stone – not negotiable and without any political skulduggery available .
$500,000.per year seems a reasonable start and not negotiable !
While on the hobby horse – a jury verdict of Not Proven should always be available.
We don’t bloody know !