Higgins Received $2.4 Million From Commonwealth

The federal government made the decision purely on the basis of her testimony alone.

Brittany Higgins leaves court in Canberra, Australia, on Oct. 14, 2022. Martin Ollman/Getty Images

Despite one criminal trial being abandoned due to juror misconduct, and a retrial not pursued because the public prosecutor feared it would put the complainant at risk of self-harm, former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins walked away with $2.445 million in compensation for her treatment by senior Liberal Party figures following rape allegations against Bruce Lehrmann

An allegation Mr. Lehrmann has always denied.

Ms. Higgins had earlier told the court, which is hearing a defamation action brought by Mr. Lehrmann against two media outlets and a reporter, that she was paid $2.3 million by the government.

She said that, after taxes and legal fees were paid, she received closer to $1.9 million net. The payment was made in December 2022 after a single day of mediation.

The actual amount was disclosed in a legal document (pdf) outlining the deal which was released by the Federal Court late on Dec. 7, after Justice Michael Lee ruled it was relevant to Ms Higgins’ evidence that the government admitted liability.

Justice Lee said the settlement deed showed a “disparity between the evidence she gave in these [defamation] proceedings and the truth of the matter.”

Commonwealth Denies Liability Amid Payout

The deed confirms that the Commonwealth did not admit liability when it agreed to pay the former staffer, stating “Without any admission of liability, the parties have agreed to resolve all claims by Ms. Higgins against the beneficiaries relating in any way to the circumstances on the terms set out in this deed, while noting that Ms. Higgins did not intend to make a claim for compensation under the SRC [Safety, Rehabilitation, and Compensation] Act.”

It also revealed she received a “modest sum” from the ACT Victims of Crime Commission.

It appears the deed was drafted by Ms Higgins’ legal team alone, then accepted by lawyers acting for the federal government.

Her “hurt, distress, and humiliation” was valued at $400,000, past and future domestic assistance costs at $100,000, and a further $220,000 for medical expenses.

Legal fees were a further $245,000, and $1,480,000 was paid for lost wages.

Prior to the alleged assault, Ms. Higgins was a junior staffer in the office of Senator Linda Reynolds.

“The claimant was successful and progressing in her career” [before the alleged rape], the document states, and “had a reasonable expectation of being promoted regularly and to eventually pursue her own political career, before suffering from the injuries and disabilities.”

It claims she will need fortnightly psychiatric appointments at an estimated rate of $285 a session and requests compensation for friends and family who have to provide domestic support.

Compensation Based Purely on Higgin’s Testimony

During the defamation trial, Mr. Lehrmann’s barrister Steven Whybrow SC put it to Ms. Higgins: “You accept you made money being a person who made an allegation of sexual assault.”

“That’s true,” Ms. Higgins replied.

Mr. Whybrow then pointed out: “As you sit there today, there’s never been a finding as to whether your allegations were true or not,” to which Ms. Higgins replied, “The Commonwealth admitted they breached their duty of care, and they didn’t go through proper processes. That’s why they settled with me.”

The document reveals that the payout was based entirely on her evidence of claims that Liberal frontbenchers Ms. Reynolds and Michaelia Cash, and her chief of staff Fiona Brown, handled the matter poorly.

Ms. Brown is expected to give evidence and dispute this allegation.

She previously told the ACT Supreme Court that she strongly urged Ms. Higgins to report the matter to law enforcement, and later took her to speak to the Australian Federal Police.

Senators Cash and Reynolds were excluded from the mediation talks, with Ms. Reynolds publicly maintaining she was stopped from disputing the claims before the payout was made.

Higgins May Be Recalled

Mr. Whybrow has told the Federal Court he wants to recall Ms Higgins to cross-examine her over the payout, on the basis the document was not previously available to legal counsel before Ms. Higgins was in the witness box.

However, Justice Lee noted that on several occasions he urged Mr. Lehrmann’s counsel to seek third-party discovery and pointed out that, had they done so, they would have had access to it earlier.

“So you would have had a list of documents well in advance, you would have been able to inspect the state well in advance of the hearing, but a forensic decision was made by the applicant,” he said. “I said I was prepared to make such an order [you did] not seek it”.

The judge will now consider whether or not Ms. Higgins should be recalled.

Details of the Claim

The compensation claim was lodged by Ms Higgins’ lawyer Noor Blumer in December 2021, who cited “serious psychiatric injury, which is ongoing and other loss including past and future economic loss.”

It said the claim was in response to “a combination of the now widely-publicised sexual assault by a co-worker that occurred on 23 March 2019 and the manner in which her co-workers, supervisors, and others responded in the immediate days and then months following the sexual assault.

“Ms. Higgin’s injuries have been exacerbated after the sexual assault became public, by the actions and the public statements made by senior members of the Australian government, notwithstanding that Ms. Higgins’ unusually brave and universally acclaimed decision to speak out about her experience has had enormous public benefit.

“As you will be aware the sexual assault is now the subject of criminal proceedings. Ms Higgins’ claims include, but are not limited to, the following: contraventions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation.

“The Commonwealth is also vicariously liable for the unlawful conduct of its employees and agents who engaged in the contraventions or by permitting the conduct to occur.”