This is an unedited copy of a comment posted on the story “As Higgins lied about the cover up…” by reader Anne, on 23 November, 2025, for the benefit of readers.
Justice Tottle’s 360 page judgment includes “… after long reflection on this difficult issue, I have concluded that in her concern to lend credibility to the allegation of a cover up the defendant demonstrated such an indifference to the truth that her account of the essential elements of the allegation can only be regarded as dishonest.”
Exhibits on the Inquiry into the ACT Criminal Justice System reveal Police concerns during the course of their investigation. Discrepancy headings listed include: – Intoxication, events at the nightclub 88MPH, The Scene at Parliament House, Ms Higgins Phone, the Injury to Ms Higgins leg, information regarding medical attention she said she had obtained (page 200
https://www.cjsinquiry.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2220465/8-Exhibits-1-25-Whybrow.pdf
Police said Ms Higgins had been “evasive, uncooperative and manipulative”.
We did not hear much about the Criminal Trial in Canberra as a suppression order was put in place when many staff witnesses were giving evidence, but the online docs from the ACT Inquiry show that the defendant had concerns about possible – Falsifying evidence, destroying or concealing of evidence, breaches of the Listening Devices act by covertly recording some staff without their consent. falsifying statement in Stat Dec. And behaviour during the trial, eg “on 17 October 2022, after Mr XX had given evidence in the trial, Ms Higgins posted to her Instagram account (which has over 10,000 followers) several images directly calling into question the honesty of the evidence given by Mr XX and including excerpts of what purported to be a transcript of a covertly recorded conversation between herself and Mr XX (a) not reflective of the recorded conversation; and (b) not in evidence before the court.”
‘false and misleading’
Investigators also found what appeared to be a mantra on her phone, “I am not scared, I don’t want to be a politician, this never felt like your world, you were just a tourlst, this is more than you expected, they did something terrible, they deserve to be held to account, Bruce raped you, he got away, they were complicit, they manipulated you, they made you feel they didn’t care, you are not the Liberal party, they wiped your phone, they continue to silence you, they are predators, systematically facilitating this behaviour, you are doing the right thing, move beyond them.”
The material online on the ACT Inquiry website, show that at the time of the criminal trial in 2022, Fiona Brown was advised by her legal rep to make urgent contact with the Crown Prosecutor. She had stated “I am disturbed by the evidence presented by Ms Higgins this morning after reading her testimony online. Statements made by Ms Higgins are false and misleading regarding what I said to her. She categorically has stated that 100% I said the following: Ms Higgins said Linda Reynolds’ chief of staff Fiona Brown offered to pay her six weeks’ wages to go to the Gold Coast during the election campaign but that if she went, there would be no prospect of her returning to work after the election. They said they would pay me out for the entirety of the election to go to he Gold Coast but there would be no prospect of me coming back,” she said. “That was 100 per cent said. “That was a conversation Fiona Brown and I had and that was the tipping point of me going to Perth.” Neither Minister Reynolds or I had the authority to pay any staff member out. And I did not at any time state or suggest this…I am deeply troubled by this serious misrepresentation in proceedings and I seek to have them corrected or put to me in court. Can you please advise what happens in times like this?” The online exhibits show that BH was offered 3 job options and she chose to go to Perth. Witnesses also said she was very involved in the campaign and photos show her seated next to L Reynolds at a birthday dinner.
After juror misconduct in the criminal trial, the Prosecutor stated that he had received “compelling evidence from two independent medical experts, that the ongoing trauma associated with this prosecution presents a significant and unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant. The evidence makes clear that this is not limited to the harm of giving evidence in the witness box, rather applies whether or not the complainant is required to re-enter the witness box in the re-trial. In light of the compelling independent medical opinions, and balancing all factors, I have made the difficult decision, that it is no longer in the public interest to pursue a prosecution at the risk of the complainant’s life.”
Ms Higgins gave evidence at the Sydney defamation trial at the end of 2023. At that time a secret recording was made in a luxury Hotel in Sydney of Ms Higgins Lawyer talking to David Sharaz and Emma Webster (who accompanied Ms Higgins at March4Justice. The National Press Club address, and all the criminal and civil proceedings. According to online profiles, Emma Webster worked for Julia Gillard, Katy Gallagher when she was ACT Chief Minister from 2011- 2014, Daniel Andrews and Andrew Barr and is currently a Partner at the political lobbying firm Hawker Britton). News reports at the time of the defamation trial, stated that medical reports were mentioned during this meeting as well as Ms Higgins fear about going to jail.
who is responsible for validity of claims?
On 12 June 2025, prior to Justice Tottle’s judgement, the NACC concluded its preliminary investigation into the $2.4 Million compensation payment to Ms Higgins: “The preliminary investigation was concerned with the probity and integrity of the process by which the Settlement was reached, and does not involve any conclusion about the validity or otherwise of Ms Higgins’ claims. As has been noted, the Settlement was on the basis of no admission of liability. 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 investigatiori.” The Deed of Settlement is an exhibit of the Sydney defamation trial website https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/114062/Exhibit-59-Deed-of-Settlement-and-Release_Redacted.pdf. Much of the material in the Deed is contrary to evidence which is now online. Which govt Dept then should look into the validity of the claims? The Dept of Finance? And who is responsible for ensuring the validity of claims prior to payments being made?
Blumers Lawyers wrote to the Secretary of Finance in Dec 2021 about Higgins claim – this was before the criminal trial and the civil proceedings where much of the evidence was presented . Was Katy Gallagher Minister of Finance aware of the contents of the claim then? She was one of the main accusers of cover up by Linda Reynolds and the Liberal Govt. All the personal particulars of the claim are dated 16 Feb 2022. The particulars of liability seem to be media narrative presented on the Project.
In terms of CCTV, it is unclear why the multiple rounds of drinks bought by the female public servant NI at the Dock Hotel and given by herself and another male public servant to BH do not feature in the official AFP video on the Fed Court website, nor in the drinks summary table provided in Justice Lee’s judgment. The defence showed pictures of this at the trial and the witness said she was a generous drunk. This witness was hostile telling the court she had “bad vibes” about Bruce – it was her “women’s intuition”. Another public servant at the time CP who does not appear to have an affidavit online even though he said he was one of the first people that Brittany spoke to about the alleged incident revealed he had not disclosed to B Lehrmann he had escalated the classified document breach issue as a formal incident and written a report about this. The doc breach was just prior to BL leaving the office. Ms Higgins texted a male Parliament House security guard that she was friendly with in the lead up to and on the weekend of the alleged incident but those texts disappeared and the security guard did not appear to have been called as a witness. The female security guard said she could not recall the name of the guard who commenced his shift about 8am the morning Higgins left the suite. Why was he not identified and called?
all about “getting Linda”
Justice Tottle’s judgment also indicates that BH disclosed her allegations to some Canberra friends (husband and wife couple) in August 2020. This would have been when she was still working for the Lib Party. It appears that the wife was up until recently the ACT ALP Operations Manager and according to previous news repts, the husband disclosed Higgins allegation to the Canberra Victims of Crimes Commissioner HY. This was the person who arranged for BH, DS and their dog flights and accommodation in Canberra, drove them around Canberra and brought in tea and homemade pastries for Ms Higgins during the criminal trial. This disclosure was then some months before the ABC Canberra Bubble program that focussed on C Porter and A Tudge, with Higgins commenting at one point, she had provided some background info to the program.
Interestingly the day the Project story broke in Feb 2021, exhibits on the Fed Court file show that Lehrmann texted a friend that it was all about “getting Linda” and that he was a pawn. At Lehrmann’s recent appeal where his Lawyer ZB referred to his phone records that day, his mental health and checking himself into Royal North Shore Hospital for suicide ideation, one of the judges promptly shut that discussion down.
Still many unanswered questions in relation to this high profile case that dominated the 2022 election but where the evidence via exhibits were only presented recently.