Bruce Lehrmann‘s lawyer was sent a threatening email shortly after defending his client against Brittany Higgins‘ rape claims in front of a jury for the first time, an inquiry has been told.
In a statement to a Board of Inquiry, which is examining the way the ACT Supreme Court trial of Mr Lehrmann was handled by prosecutors and the Australian Federal Police, barrister Steven Whybrow revealed he had referred a menacing email to ACT Police.
In his statement to the inquiry, Mr Whybrow said that while the sender ‘could be a nutter’, he was concerned about a potential threat to his family.
The email, sent to Mr Whybrow’s chambers on October 5 and obtained by Daily Mail Australia, described the defence lawyer as a ‘scum-sucking pond beast’ and a ‘vacuous immoral vampire’.
It suggested he might be heckled in public for representing Mr Lehrmann. The message was sent from an anonymous email address with the username ‘Somebody Who Knows’.
Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of allegedly raping Brittany Higgins. The trial was eventually aborted over juror misconduct and the charge against Mr Lehrmann was dropped over concerns for Ms Higgins’ mental health.
Mr Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence.
Bruce Lehrmann is pictured, left, outside the ACT Supreme Court with his defence barrister Steven Whybrow, right
The email to Mr Whybrow, referred to in the inquiry, began with a supposed Mark Twain quote: ‘Pretty sure Mark Twain actually said: ‘Never let the truth get near the scum-sucking pond beast known as a defence lawyer, for they will disfigure, twist and render it asunder until there is nary a shred of truth left in what they say.’
It continued: ‘But hey I guess (being a defence lawyer) pays well, even if no-one will ever look you in the face again because you’re a vacuous immoral vampire who profits off deceit and misery.’
The email continued: ‘Canberra is a small town, you still have to eat out and go shopping, I hope no-one ever heckles you in public over this, that would be very unfortunate were it to ever happen.’
‘I mean, imagine sitting at a restaurant eating your dinner with your family and some lunatic comes up … that would be a horrible thing I bet, anyway I hope it never happens to you.’
Mr Whybrow asked police to identify the person behind the email. A spokesperson for ACT Policing told Daily Mail Australia last week: ‘No charges were laid as the author was not able to be identified.’
Brittany Higgins (pictured with her fiance David Sharaz) accused Mr Lehrmann of raping her. He has always denied the allegation
In a separate development, statements released by the inquiry earlier this week also revealed Mr Whybrow and Shane Drumgold, the ACT Director of Public Prosecution and lead prosecutor in the case, suffered a complete relationship breakdown as a result of Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial.
(It is not suggested Mr Drumgold, or anyone else was responsible for the missive Mr Whybrow received.)
The Board of Inquiry was launched after Mr Drumgold sent a fiery letter to ACT Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan on November 1, 2022 – between when a mistrial was announced in October and when the matter was dropped entirely on December 1.
In the letter, he claimed there was political interference in the investigation into Mr Lehrmann – that is, he accused ACT Policing, Australian Federal Police, and the Police Commissioner of trying to get Ms Higgins’ complaint dismissed.
However, during the inquiry this week, Mr Drumgold backed down on those claims – conceding that any issues he identified in the investigation was likely due to ‘police deficit’ rather than a wider conspiracy not to charge Mr Lehrmann.
My Whybrow’s statement reveals he was on friendly terms with Mr Drumgold prior to the rape trial, and had even recommended the prosecutor for the position of DPP in 2020 when he was president of the ACT Bar Association.
During his recommendation to the High Court three years ago, Mr Whybrow said: ‘May it please the court, I inform the court that the following member of the Bar here present has been appointed as senior counsel in the Australian Capital Territory.
‘He is Neville Shane Drumgold.’
In his recent statement to the inquiry, Mr Whybrow said he also recommended Mr Drumgold’s title be elevated to Senior Counsel.
‘In addition to supporting Mr Drumgold’s application, based on his experience and competence, I took the view that the Office of the DPP was one that should carry the title of Senior Counsel, given the status and importance of the position,’ he said in his statement to the inquiry.
‘I felt it was a way in which to give confidence to the public at large that the DPP was a highly respected practitioner as adjudged by his peers.’
He went on to say that he believed the pair had a ‘friendly relationship’ prior to the trial.
‘We would disagree at times – and sometimes forcefully – but the relationship was never less than cordial and professional,’ his statement read.
Daily Mail Australia understands the case has damaged the once-close professional relationship.
The Board of Inquiry was launched after ACT DPP Shane Drumgold (pictured) claimed there was political interference in the investigation into Mr Lehrmann
During the inquiry this week, Mr Drumgold was grilled by four lawyers over five days about all the decisions he made in the lead-up to, during and after the trial.
On Friday, Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou ripped into him because he failed to correct a file note he wrote following a meeting with the TV host and her Channel 10 lawyer in the lead-up to the Logie awards last June.
The note said Wilkinson was warned against mentioning Ms Higgins in her acceptance speech, in the event she won the award. She was nominated for her interview with Ms Higgins on Channel 10’s The Project in 2021.
During the speech, which was broadcast nationally, Wilkinson appeared to side with Ms Higgins – saying she ‘believed’ her allegations. She did not mention the trial, Mr Lehrmann, any criminal charge or Parliament House.
Wilkinson faced extreme criticism, which ultimately led Mr Lehrmann’s trial to be delayed.
Lisa Wilkinson is pictured giving her Logies speech last year. She was widely criticised for her speech
Mr Drumgold had insisted that his file note about discussions with Wilkinson and her lawyer was contemporaneous, meaning he made it immediately following the meeting.
However, under cross-examination, Mr Drumgold admitted the file note note was not contemporaneous, but was actually made days after the meeting and may not be an accurate representation of what happened during the meeting with Wilkinson in June.
Mr Drumgold told the inquiry he formed the view the TV host was adequately warned because he saw Wilkinson and her lawyer put their Microsoft Teams meeting on mute and had a private conversation.
‘I was confident they knew she couldn’t make that speech,’ Mr Drumgold said.
Ms Chrysanthou: ‘Did you read their lips?’
Mr Drumgold: ‘No’.
Ms Chrysanthou: ‘Then how could you have possibly made that conclusion?’
Mr Drumgold: ‘Because an experienced journalist sitting next to a lawyer would have come to that conclusion.’
Ms Chrysanthou eventually said: ‘The answer you just gave is illogical and irrational and contrary to human experience.’
Wilkinson’s lawyer also quizzed Mr Drumgold about why he didn’t tell Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, who was presiding over Mr Lehrmann’s rape trial, that his file note was not contemporaneous.
‘Her honour was handed the proofing note and was observing it – [in the court transcript] you say the speech was “undesirable – the proofing notes can be open to interpretation”,’ she said.
Ms Chrysanthou then explained that proofing notes were normally used in criminal cases and were taken as contemporaneous notes: ‘You’re misleading the Chief Justice,’ she said.
Mr Drumgold: ‘Not intentionally.’
Ms Chrysanthou further submitted that Mr Drumgold caused the ‘destruction’ of Wilkinson in submitting the file note which he said was contemporaneous, but wasn’t.
The inquiry continues on Monday.
