Last week, Commissioner Walter Sofronoff took the extraordinary step of leaking his report about the inquiry into the handling of the Brittany Higgins case when the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government refused to promptly release it.
The inquiry revealed much about the ideology that has engulfed our criminal law system. Hobbling of police officers, rewriting rules of evidence, and new procedures to streamline rape cases through to court.
The new victim-centred justice system was fully on display, showing a clear lack of respect for the presumption of innocence.
Information published to date suggests the Commissioner has failed to properly address the key role played in this new system by the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates.
We all witnessed Ms. Yates going every day into court alongside Brittany Higgins.
Ms. Yates is a lawyer, yet we saw her standing by while Ms. Higgins ignored the judge’s contempt of court rules to attack Mr. Lehrmann and the justice system after the case was declared a mistrial.
The inquiry revealed that Ms. Higgins had prepared that statement in advance and shown it to Ms. Yates and to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold. Mr. Sofronoff was clearly incredulous that, in that circumstance, Ms. Yates just stood by and let Ms. Higgins deliver that speech.
“Did it cross your mind that amongst the things she would say would be words to the effect that, ‘Bruce Lehrmann is guilty?’” he asked.
Ms. Yates responded that she was simply concerned about getting Ms. Higgins through her stressful day and wasn’t focused on her speech.
When the inquiry’s counsel put to her that it was “problematic for you as Victim of Crime Commissioner to stand next to her publicly when she made those comments” Ms. Yates said she hadn’t thought about it.
Asked whether, in retrospect, she should have acted differently, she said “she would not have made a different decision” about accompanying Ms. Higgins to court.”
The Presumption of Innocence
As well as the Victims of Crime Commissioner, Ms. Yates is a member of the ACT Human Rights Commission—dual roles which you might have thought would cause some conflict.But Ms. Yates explained to the Inquiry she had managed the issue. She described how, in 2021, the ACT had introduced a Charter of Rights, which promotes new rights for complainants designed “to balance” classic human rights, presumably like the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial.
Looking at the Charter of Rights, it tilts the scales in the complainant’s favour.
“In practical terms, we start from a position of belief,” Ms. Yates explained. In other words, belief in the woman’s story.
“If they are telling us that they have suffered harm because of an offence, we believe that in the first instance.”
Ms. Yates obviously believed in Ms. Higgins’ story even after the police’s extensive investigation revealed her evidence didn’t stack up and after holes in Ms. Higgins’ story were exposed in cross-examination.
- She became an intermediary between Ms. Higgins and the police.
- Yates used the Charter of Rights to demand updates on the investigation.
- The Charter of Rights was also used to persuade police to allow Ms. Higgins to be shown CCTV vision bending normal rules which prevent evidence from being shown to witnesses.
- She used Mr. Drumgold to thwart Detective Superintendent Scott Moller’s efforts to contact Ms. Higgins directly.
Justice System Quietly Tweaked
Behind the scenes during the police investigations, pressure from the Higgins-inspired March4Justice led to the establishment of a Sexual Assault, Prevention, and Response Steering Committee (SAPR), which was designed to make recommendations for accusations against men.They announced a task force to review all ACT charging decisions since 2015 and establish new procedures to ensure all cases are pushed through to court. Ms. Yates was part of the steering committee responsible for the SAPR.
That’s the climate federal police were facing when investigating the Higgins case. The push was on to find they were undercharging—and sure enough, SAPR’s task force came up with low charging rates for the ACT, which police lawyers revealed during the inquiry to be based on wrong data.
The traditional investigatory work required of police was being downgraded, and the police encountered increasing hostility, with Mr. Drumgold making comments to the jury about their poor skill sets.
It was enlightening during the inquiry watching police officers being cross-examined by hostile barristers as they defended their right to do the work of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Lehrmann.
But also chilling to see them forced to mouth the platitudes required in this new climate, giving assurances about the importance of Ms. Yates’ work and the value of victim-centric justice.
They did their job, but it was obvious this showcase was going to trial. Politicians, women’s groups, and the media were baying for blood. And they had Mr. Drumgold making it clear he intended to prosecute the case, no matter what.
By the time Bruce Lehrmann and his lawyers were preparing for the criminal trial, police involved with sexual assault cases were discovering their world had changed.
They were advised by Mr. Drumgold of a significant change to the charging threshold—a far lower test for the decision to take a case to trial.
The mere fact that the suspect had been interviewed could now be sufficient to result in charges. No need for cogent evidence or thorough investigations. A woman’s “truth” would be all that is required.
Since the Higgins case ended, the full extent of the new system has been revealed with the establishment of a Criminal Investigations Management Committee overseeing all charging decisions, which police told the inquiry seems intent on pushing all rape cases through to trial.
The rights of any male facing a rape accusation in the ACT courts have well and truly been sacrificed on the altar of this new feminist-led ideology.
