Bruce Lehrmann: Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates appears before inquiry

The ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner has conceded she should have asked Brittany Higgins for a copy of a speech she planned to give after the trial of her alleged rapist was aborted.

Heidi Yates was the final witness listed to give evidence to an inquiry into criminal justice agencies handling of the Bruce Lehrmann case on Thursday.

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexually assaulting his former colleague at Parliament House in 2019 before the trial was aborted due to jury misconduct.

Mr Lehrmann has continually denied the allegation, and the DPP declined to pursue a second trial due to concerns over Ms Higgins’ mental health and dropped the charge.

Ms Yates acted as an intermediary between police and Ms Higgins during the investigation and was a prominent fixture at her side during the trial.

But a decision to stand beside Ms Higgins as she addressed the media outside ACT Supreme Court after it was declared a mistrial has come into question.

Counsel assisting Erin Longbottom KC said Ms Yates role as the VCC as established in the Victims of Crime Act, could have implications for the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is a human right.

“It has been suggested that the action of Ms Yates at a time when there was to be a fresh trial, had a propensity to affect the presumption of innocence to which Mr Lehrmann was entitled.”

Ms Longbottom asked Ms Yates if “in hindsight” she should have asked for a copy of Ms Higgins’ speech beforehand.

“In hindsight, yes,” Ms Yates responded.

Asked if she wouldn’t have stood next to the former Liberal staffer had she seen a copy of the speech, Ms Yates said she was “open” to it.

“It's hard to go back in time … I’m very open to the likelihood that if I had more information to consider, I may have made a different decision,” she said.

The inquiry was told Ms Yates’ priority that morning was Ms Higgins’ welfare, given she had just broken down in court, but any perception the VCC had infringed on the presumption of innocence “concerned (her) greatly”.

She told the inquiry if any concerns had been raised with her during the trial she would have “absolutely considered those.”

However, Ms Yates gave evidence that she stood by her decision to walk into court each day alongside Ms Higgins, given the Director of Public Prosecutions had not raised any objections to it.

“I’m confident, with the information available to me at the time, I made a fair decision in balancing all of the matters that I was required to balance,” she said.

“The learnings from this case regarding the risk of misunderstanding what it meant for me to be walking by her.”

The right to the presumption of innocence and support for someone who claims to be a victim of a crime is a key question facing the inquiry.

Ms Yates explained her role requires her to “start from a position of belief” of a complainant, no matter if a charge is laid.

“In practice it would be impossible to run a victims support service in any other way,” she said.

HIGGINS ‘STARTED TO CRY’ IN CHAT WITH POLICE

The inquiry was told Ms Higgins asked for the VCC’s support in contacting police as not knowing when the investigators could call was adding to her anxiety.

“She wasn’t complaining in any way about the manner (police officers) engaged with her but rather she was very anxious about when police might call and what they may be asking of her,” Ms Yates said.

“Noting that every time her phone dinged or rang she was concerned it might be police and in the middle of something or in the middle of a public place.

“She might be asked a question that took her back to traumatic events for her and she was anxious about doing that.”

Ms Yates was asked about her attendance at a second formal police interview and a conversation that took place afterwards between Ms Higgins and five investigators.

Ms Yates, who took handwritten notes at the time, said Detective Superintendent Scott Moller told Ms Higgins in a “harsh tone” that she immediately cease speaking to the media.

“There should not be any further contact with the media. You’ve got to stop talking to the media,” he said, according to Ms Yates notes.

“If you’re speaking to the media and this can’t go ahead, it will all be for nothing.”

Ms Yates said the senior police officer was “louder” and it seemed as if it was a “directive, rather than informative,”.

“(He) was using his hands to emphasise things. I observed a change in Ms Higgins response. She started to slump in her chair, and I believe she started to cry,” she said.

The inquiry has previously been told the VCC responded by assuring Ms Higgins that she had achieved “important systemic advocacy” even if the criminal justice process couldn’t go ahead.

“I was seeking to immediately ameliorate what I saw as comments in which Ms Higgins was distressed,” Ms Yates said.

The inquiry was told Ms Higgins became increasingly anxious over the course of the investigation and trial, and the former Liberal staffer trusted very few people for support.

“I was on a daily basis managing a client with very fragile mental health with a very small circle of trusted support,” Ms Yates said.

VCC SAT IN ON MEETING WITH SCOTT MORRISON

Ms Yates first came into contact with Ms Higgins in April 2021 after her partner David Sharaz reached out ahead of the former political staffer’s meeting with then prime minister Scott Morrison.

The inquiry was told the VCC met with Ms Higgins the day prior and the pair spoke about raising the issue of access to reporting pathways for people who had experienced a sexual assault.

“I took her request to be the sort that we often receive from clients who are advocating for change,” Ms Yates said.

She told the inquiry that she had informed Ms Higgins and her partner that she fell under her jurisdiction as the VCC, it was clear Ms Higgins was just seeking her support in relation to those meetings.

A request for Ms Yates to act as Ms Higgins’ support person did not come until May 2021.

NEXT STEPS FOR THE INQUIRY

After 13 days of public hearings, chair Walter Sofronoff has adjourned to consider the evidence and await final submissions from each party.

However, the retired Queensland judge has left the door open to reconvening hearings in the next week should it be decided further witnesses who provided written statements needed to be examined.

Nine witnesses, including the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC and defence barrister Steven Whybrow SC, who gave evidence about their involvement in the case.

The inquiry was sparked by a letter Mr Drumgold sent to the ACT’s chief police officer, in which he raised concerns about “political and police conduct” during the trial.

Mr Sofronoff will hand down his draft recommendations later the month. His full report is due to be handed back to the ACT government for review by July 31.