Bruce Lehrmann reveals his idea about how Brittany Higgins’s costume got here off at Parliament Home on the night time of the alleged rape

Bruce Lehrmann’s attorneys argue Brittany Higgins might have taken her personal costume off in senator Linda Reynolds’ workplace, maybe to keep away from vomiting on it, as he maintains he didn’t rape his former parliamentary colleague, court docket paperwork have revealed. 

Justice Michael Lee is predicted to within the coming months hand down his resolution within the blockbuster defamation trial between Mr Lehrmann and Community 10, heard within the Federal Court docket in December.

Mr Lehrmann sued the community and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over their reporting of Ms Higgins’ allegations on The Undertaking in February 2021.

Central to the trial is what occurred behind closed doorways in Senator Reynolds’ workplace within the early hours of Saturday March 23, 2019 after Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins returned to parliament following an evening of consuming at two Canberra bars.

In paperwork launched by the court docket on Friday, Mr Lehrmann’s attorneys maintained that no sexual activity befell between the previous political staffer and Ms Higgins.

‘Mr Lehmann submits that there’s an inadequate evidentiary foundation for a constructive discovering to be made that any sexual activity, consensual or in any other case, befell,’ Mr Lehrmann’s attorneys wrote in closing submissions.

Mr Lehrmann maintains that he didn’t rape Ms Higgins and went to Parliament Home within the early morning to gather his keys and sat at his desk making notes on query time briefs earlier than leaving.

In accordance with his proof, he turned left when he entered Senator Reynolds’ workplace and Ms Higgins turned proper, and he didn’t see her once more that night time.

Ms Higgins has alleged that she handed out and woke to seek out Mr Lehrmann raping her on a sofa in Senator Reynolds’ personal workplace.

Throughout her proof, Ms Higgins informed the court docket that she on a number of earlier events made incorrect claims concerning the state of her costume when she wakened on the morning of the alleged sexual assault.

The court docket has been informed that she had beforehand written in a draft guide, and informed police and journalists, that when she wakened inside parliament on the morning of March 23, 2019 the costume was hanging round her waist like a belt.

Nonetheless, the court docket has been informed that model of occasions was contradicted by the proof of a safety guard who mentioned Ms Higgins was found bare.

Mr Lehrmann’s attorneys additional argued there have been ‘just too many different believable prospects’ as to ‘why Ms Higgins was discovered bare in that workplace’ to permit Justice Lee to ascertain precisely what befell.

Mr Lehrmann’s attorneys argued that Ms Higgins might have taken off her costume as a result of she might have felt sick and did not wish to threat vomiting on it.

‘One other rationalization is Ms Higgins might have vomited on her costume sooner or later and took it off earlier than mendacity down on the minister’s sofa after which handed out or fell asleep,’ Mr Lehrmann’s attorneys argued within the closing submissions.

‘Within the morning she might or might not have tried to clean off her costume in Minister Reynolds’ rest room.’

They argue the ‘essential level’ is there are a variety of ‘believable explanations’ as to why Ms Higgins took her costume off.

Nonetheless, Community 10’s attorneys argue that Ms Higgins had dominated out any idea that she took off the costume herself.

‘Ms Higgins didn’t settle for that it was attainable that she had eliminated her costume herself,’ they wrote of their closing submissions, which have been additionally launched on Friday.

‘The impact of her proof was that she had no recollection of doing so and that it was simply not one thing that might ever occur.’

Additionally they sought to handle inconsistencies between Ms Higgins’ proof at her felony trial and being discovered bare by the safety guard.

Throughout her proof to the Federal Court docket, Ms Higgins conceded she was mistaken about the place her costume was positioned when she wakened.

‘In all of the circumstances, the court docket ought to reject the three assaults on Ms Higgins’ credibility,’ Ten’s attorneys argued.

‘However the inconsistencies in her proof that she frankly acknowledged, she was general a candid and trustworthy witness.’

They additional argued that Ms Higgins’ proof referring to the alleged sexual assault was ‘uncooked and compelling, and it was according to the target proof, the place accessible’.