Previously confidential documents have been released by an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann which detail concerns police had about his case, as the ACT’s top prosecutor today defended his decision not to release them.

The Board of Inquiry, led by former Queensland Judge Walter Sofronoff, is looking into the conduct of prosecutors, police and the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner during the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann.

Mr Lehrmann’s trial was abandoned and there are no findings against him — he maintains his innocence.

The inquiry was set up after the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold raised concerns he had been pressured by police not to pursue the charge against Mr Lehrmann.

During proceedings yesterday, Mr Drumgold was asked whether he had sought to block a police report on the case from being released, to which he replied that he believed it contained “irrelevant material”.

In that document, prepared by detective superintendent Scott Moller and dubbed the Moller report, police described Ms Higgins as evasive, uncooperative and manipulative, arguing they were concerned about proceeding with the charge.

The full briefing released today lists police allegations including that Ms Higgins repeatedly refused to provide police with the phone she was using at the time of the alleged incident, before eventually handing it over.

Investigators also alleged there were phone messages which indicated Ms Higgins deliberately deleted content from her phone before giving it to the police.

Police also said that after extensive inquiries they could find no records stating that Ms Higgins had received any medical help after the alleged incident, despite her telling investigators she had visited multiple doctors.

Suite of documents released

A further discrepancy was alleged by police in the accounts of Ms Higgins and a security guard working at Parliament House on the night of the alleged rape.

According to police, Ms Higgins said her dress was around her waist after the alleged rape, while the security guard who conducted a welfare check on her later that night described finding her naked.

Police also claimed Ms Higgins had sought medical advice when there was no evidence she had.

They further alleged that Ms Higgins had told her boss, former Liberal Minister Linda Reynolds, about the assault, when Senator Reynolds said she wasn’t told there was a sexual assault during their meeting.

Other documents revealed police were concerned Mr Lehrmann’s account didn’t seem plausible — that two people would go into an office late at night and have no further contact.

Police also alleged in separate documents that a witness claimed Ms Higgins and a former boyfriend had sex on multiple occasions in the office where she was allegedly sexually assaulted — an allegation that was not included as evidence in the trial and was never tested in court.

The documents also list alleged discrepancies between the accounts of Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann.

Drumgold believed Moller report would be ‘crushing’ 

Today during his second day of evidence to the inquiry Mr Drumgold was quizzed over why he sought to prevent the release of the Moller report.

Mr Drumgold said if Ms Higgins heard that a senior police officer was writing what could be interpreted as pejorative comments about her, it “would inhibit her ability to engage in the trial.”

He has repeatedly insisted that there was no valid reason for disclosing the Moller report.

Mr Drumgold has told the inquiry he believed the document was the subject of legal professional privilege because AFP Legal had sought his advice about its contents.

But the document was ultimately released to Mr Lehrmann’s legal team to comply with a subpoena.

Counsel assisting the inquiry Erin Longbottom KC challenged Mr Drumgold’s account.

“You acted on assumption rather than actually asking AFP Legal,” she said.

“They were asking for my input into their decision, I was not making a conclusion,” Mr Drumgold replied.

Drumgold read counselling notes

The inquiry has also heard the DPP read notes from Ms Higgins’s counselling sessions after they had been improperly disclosed to lawyers for Mr Lehrmann.

Such material is typically treated as protected confidence by the court and cannot be seen without consent. 

Emails shown to the inquiry reveal police served the brief of evidence directly to the defence, without first going through the DPP’s office.

An email chain confirms the brief included sensitive information, such as notes from Ms Higgins’s counselling sessions after the alleged incident, as well as personal details such as her address and phone number.

Today, Mr Drumgold revealed he also looked at the counselling notes.

“I had to know what was disclosed… I had to work out what remedy was required,” he told the inquiry.

“I already knew that one or more police had taken a particular preliminary view on the brief, and I now knew… some protected material had been served.

“I’m asking myself; ‘are those two things connected?'”

Judge Sofronoff challenged Mr Drumgold’s claim that it was necessary for him to also read the documents, noting he became “agitated” at learning they had also been delivered to the defence.

“You’re overstating what I did — I perused the counselling notes to get a basic understanding of what was in them,” Mr Drumgold replied.