Login
DPP under fire for advice on controversial Logies speech
ACT’s Director of Public Prosecutions has stood firm on his position that he gave sufficient advice to journalist Lisa Wilkinson before a speech at the Logies that would have dire consequences on Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial, an inquiry has heard.
Naomi Neilson
Ms Wilkinson’s top media barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, went head-to-head with Shane Drumgold SC in a fiery examination about whether he failed in his duty as the DPP and as a barrister to protect a Crown witness from the fallout of a speech about Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations against Mr Lehrmann at the 2022 Logies.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Mr Lehrmann has continued to deny the allegations.
In mid-last year, ACT Supreme Court Judge Lucy McCallum accused the media, and Ms Wilkinson, of “obliterating the important discussion between an allegation that remains untested at law and one that has been accepted by a jury giving a true verdict”.
Trial dates were vacated as a result, and Ms Wilkinson was essentially gagged from speaking about the trial publicly.
At the time, headlines targeted Ms Wilkinson, and media reports claimed she had ignored advice Mr Drumgold had given her about the major risk her speech could have on the future of the trial.
In an email shown to the inquiry, Ms Wilkinson’s lawyers said this fallout was why she had stood down from The Project.
However, an inquiry examining Mr Lehrmann’s trial revealed Ms Wilkinson and her lawyers were under the impression this advice was never given and Mr Drumgold failed to clarify with the court.
In a meeting in June 2022 about Ms Wilkinson’s witness evidence, the journalist said she had read part of her speech to Mr Drumgold and alleged she was only told not to mention the trial.
Mr Drumgold said he told her “any publicity could give rise to a stay”.
“My rationale at that stage (was that I told Ms Wilkinson) mentioning Ms Higgins is tantamount to mentioning what she is known for,” he said.
Ms Chrysanthou rejected this, telling Mr Drumgold that he could not have thought Ms Wilkinson and her lawyer would have left the meeting with clear instructions not to give the speech.
“In retrospect, it was a failing,” Mr Drumgold admitted.
“At the time, I was confident I had given her enough information.”
Mr Drumgold stood by his opinion that Ms Wilkinson was still properly warned and could have received this advice from her own lawyer.
He said Ms Wilkinson and her lawyer went on mute at one stage for what he believed was to discuss the advice.
“I was 100 per cent confident that when the microphone went on mute, her lawyer was giving her advice,” Mr Drumgold said.
Ms Chrysanthou said that was a “rash statement”, considering he did not hear at all what was said by Ms Wilkinson and her lawyer.
“A lawyer’s role is to give advice. She is sitting there with a lawyer, and it goes on mute. The only rational conclusion is it went on mute (for the reasons of) legal professional privilege,” Mr Drumgold said.
“(That is) illogical and irrational and contrary to human experience,” Ms Chrysanthou fired back.
During the meeting, Mr Drumgold’s junior solicitors made notes about the proofing meeting but stopped when the Logies were mentioned.
That day, Mr Drumgold said the solicitors added in the notes as an “addendum” and admitted they were not contemporaneously made.
However, he failed to inform Justice McCallum of this, and Ms Chrysanthou accused Mr Drumgold of misleading the court.
Ms Chrysanthou said Mr Drumgold would have had the “perfect” opportunity to make that clarification the day after the trial dates were vacated, which may ease harsh media reporting of Ms Wilkinson.
“I now accept that,” Mr Drumgold said.
