Stunning last minute twist as Brittany Higgins questions if she was 'DRUGGED and raped' in Parliament in eleventh hour court statement

Brittany Higgins has questioned whether she was allegedly drugged and raped in Parliament House, fresh court documents reveal.

The revelations were made in a submission written by lawyer Nicholas Owen SC on Ms Higgins' behalf and tendered to the Federal Court on Tuesday in Bruce Lehrmann's defamation trial.

In her submissions, Ms Higgins responded to questions raised about her controversial taxpayer-funded $2.4million compensation package.

And she gave three key reasons why she says she did not lie while giving evidence about her alleged rape.

Mr Lehrmann sued Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson over an episode on The Project in 2021, during which Ms Higgins first alleged Mr Lehrmann raped her in Parliament House when they were both Liberal staffers in 2021.

Mr Lehrmann strongly denies the allegations. He was not named in the broadcast but claims friends and family members were able to identify him as the alleged rapist.

Justice Michael Lee invited Ms Higgins to make a submission to 'avoid any suggestions that she was denied procedural fairness' before he delivered his judgement, which has now been set for 10.15am on Monday.

'A number of allegations have been made arising out of the evidence prior to the reopening concerning the behaviour of most particularly Ms Higgins,' Justice Lee said on Thursday.

'Certainly in relation to Ms Higgins, it's going to be necessary for me to make findings.'

In her submission, Ms Higgins pointed out that she was only a witness in the defamation trial in December, and not a party to the proceedings.

Ms Higgins said she would have more rigorously explored some of the evidence tendered to the court which may have called her credibility into question.

'Was I drugged?'

One example she used was a document called the 'master chronology', tendered by former Channel Seven employee Taylor Auerbach last Tuesday, noting an entry by senior Australian Federal Police officer Leanne Cross.

According to the document, that entry was a record of a phone call Ms Cross had with Ms Higgins' former bosses in April 2019, then-defence industry minister Linda Reynolds and her chief of staff Fiona Brown.

In Ms Higgins' submission, Ms Cross had said: 'I also have concerns from info I heard that this may have happened before or could happen again. (I was referring to info that alleged victim may have been drugged). 

'[AFP officer Paul Sherring] – we need to speak to a range of people. Security staff cleaners may have info.'

Ms Higgins said in the document that she was not aware of any suggestion that she was drugged, and said the topic had not been 'raised or explored in these proceedings'. 

'While there is evidence now that there was 'info' that Ms Higgins was drugged ... the basis upon which the concerns were held was not explored,' she said.

'In the context of a serious challenge to the honesty and accuracy of Ms Higgins' account of the events of the night in question, the potential that her perceptive and recollective abilities may have been affected other than by alcohol and trauma is an issue that she would have wished to explore.'

The $2.4million compensation claim 

Ms Higgins said in her submission that the nature and purpose of her $2.4million settlement deed with the Commonwealth was not explored by the court, and it would therefore be 'grossly unfair' to use it against her.

Her civil claim against the Commonwealth was settled in December 2022 after just one day of mediation, and 10 days after the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann. 

The claim was over her alleged treatment after her sexual assault allegations in Parliament House, despite the fact that the allegations have never been proven.

The deed of settlement was released during the defamation trial in December. Ms Higgins had told the court the Albanese government admitted liability and 'breached its duty of care and didn't go through proper processes'.

However, the deed specifically stated that all claims were settled 'without any admission of liability'.

It attracted criticism because there were key differences between the evidence she gave about her alleged rape in court and the evidence presented in the deed.  

In her submission, Ms Higgins said the deed was settled soon after the rape trial and that she had been hospitalised due to mental health concerns around that period of time.

It is for that reason that she said in her submission that 'any findings of dishonesty' could not be made in relation to the contents of the deed.

'There is no proper basis in the evidence in these proceedings upon which to make any findings as to Ms Higgins' subjective state of mind upon which any finding of dishonesty could be made in relation to the contents of the deed,' it said.

Ms Higgins was not cross-examined about the contents of the deed and therefore did not have an opportunity to explain it or justify particular inclusions, she said.

Her submission also said that Ms Higgins 'is not a lawyer' and therefore not familiar with a 'complex formal document in the same way that a lawyer is or would be', and used the example of the moment she wrongly told the court the government accepted liability.

'To suggest, for example, that her evidence that the Commonwealth 'came to an agreement that a failure of a duty of care was made' is dishonest because the Deed ... says no admission of liability was made ... goes absolutely nowhere,' she said.

'From the perspective of a non-lawyer, her claim to that effect had been resolved by the payment of a substantial amount of money. This attack is a highly subtle point, which was never put to Ms Higgins in cross-examination. 

'There is simply no basis upon which it could be said to bespeak dishonesty. 

'I didn't lie': Brittany's three reasons

Ms Higgins also rejected Mr Lehrmann's claims that she is dishonest, and provided three reasons why.

Her first reason hinged on a submission by Mr Lehrmann that asked why Ms Higgins lied to Ms Brown, her former, boss about going to a doctor in the days after her alleged assault. 

Ms Higgins argued that she gave 'powerful' evidence to explain her 'conflicted and traumatised response' in the period after her alleged rape, suggesting it was 'entirely consistent with contemporary understanding of the reaction of victims of sexual assault'.

Her second reason was based on the difference between making a statement that is dishonest versus making a statement that is wrong, and referenced her own previous submissions when she said 'she did not receive any emails from Mr Lehrmann before work on the Monday after the weekend of the incident'.

'To suggest that a rape victim is dishonest because they did not recall such a trifling matter in the immediate aftermath of their rape, is to ignore both the trauma caused by the rape, and ordinary human experience of memory in relation to minor details.'

'One thing that emerged very clearly from Ms Higgins' evidence was her preparedness to accept that something she genuinely thought had happened, did not happen in light of objective evidence.'

In her submission, Ms Higgins said she was more intoxicated than ever before on the night in question and had 'done her best to reconstruct what happened to her'.

Her third reason was 'Mr Lehrmann's submissions alleging dishonesty rarely rise any higher than the observance of an inconsistency in the account given by Ms Higgins'.

Justice Lee will hand down his judgement at 10.15am on Monday.