One of Canberra's most senior cops says police feared for the integrity of their investigation into Brittany Higgins' rape claims because the ACT's top prosecutor seemed to have "a predetermined position".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In a statement to an inquiry into the Bruce Lehrmann case, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller claims Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC made up his mind before he had even reviewed the evidence.
The strained relationship between police and prosecutors is being examined at the inquiry into the case of Mr Lehrmann, who denies raping Ms Higgins at Parliament House when they were Liberal Party staffers.
He stood trial last year after pleading not guilty to a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, which was discontinued after the jury was discharged without reaching a verdict.
Detective Superintendent Moller initially felt there was insufficient evidence to charge Mr Lehrmann, but on Monday he told the inquiry he ultimately formed the view the relevant threshold had been met.
But in his written statement, he outlines how he held concerns as far back as early 2021, when Ms Higgins went public with her allegations, about the attitude Mr Drumgold had towards the investigation.
He wrote that his officers had informed him Mr Drumgold was "dismissive of their account of the evidence and had a predetermined position to charge and prosecute the suspect".
"I remember specifically being told at one of the meetings between the investigation team and Mr Drumgold at Belconnen Police Station, Mr Drumgold said, 'It doesn't matter what he says' in reference to Mr Lehrmann being interviewed.
"At that stage Mr Lehrmann had not yet been offered a police interview.
"This comment shocked me and concerned the investigators. This comment was the topic of much discussion."
Detective Superintendent Moller's concerns prompted him to meet with Mr Drumgold in June 2021, about three weeks before police provided the Director of Public Prosecutions with a brief of evidence.
"It was clear to me that he had already decided on progressing the prosecution even though he had not reviewed the evidence," the detective said.
In his statement, Detective Superintendent Moller also takes aim at Mr Drumgold over what he called a "vexatious" statement that inferred police had deleted Parliament House CCTV footage.
He described such a suggestion as "offensive to an extremely committed, hardworking and competent investigation team".
"The team were certain that this footage never existed however after Mr Drumgold's complaint alleging the investigators had deleted it, the team diverted its efforts and worked for weeks to identify the footage and if such footage ever existed".
Detective Superintendent Moller said it could not be found, and he believed Mr Drumgold had confused videos recovered by police with a Four Corners reconstruction of the morning of the alleged rape.
"This caused a significant divide between the investigation team and the DPP," he wrote in his statement.
"Those undertones in relation to the investigators' corrupt or dishonest behaviour continued throughout the prosecution and were entirely without foundation and offensive to our investigation team.
READ MORE:
"I believe Mr Drumgold's own actions ... alienated investigators and [ACT Policing] management from the DPP."
In his evidence to the inquiry, Mr Drumgold spoke very differently about the allegedly vanishing video.
He insisted he had seen the footage, which he described as showing Ms Higgins "swaying", but said he had never suggested it was deliberately deleted.
Rather, Mr Drumgold says he believes his clash with police is a product of a "skills deficit" on the part of investigators, who have been regularly misapplying the law when deciding whether or not to charge suspects.
His barrister, Mark Tedeschi KC, has claimed police would have "ignored" the case, like he alleged they had done with many others, if not for the location of the alleged offence and the publicity surrounding the matter.
Mr Drumgold's junior counsel at the trial, Skye Jerome, also claims to have seen the video at the centre of the dispute between police and prosecutors before it eventually "disappeared".
Detective Superintendent Moller's evidence to the inquiry continues.
