Brittany Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz, threatened to go public with complaints over the speed of the rape investigation and sent emails to the detective investigating the case and the Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates, an inquiry has heard.

The inquiry probing the investigation of Bruce Lehrmann has published a new trove of documents overnight detailing the couple’s dealing with police and how mistrust grew as the police questioned her credibility.

In one email sent by Mr Sharaz on July 29, 2021, the document is marked “Subject:News Story”.

In the correspondence, he notes that Ms Higgins had placed her “life on hold, and awaits a step forward from the police”.

“We have both remained silent, as per the direction of the police, and have asked them to keep us in the loop on any media commentary they plan to make,’’ he wrote.

“l was hoping we could once again seek guidance on whether we can expect an outcome, as indicated, by the end of the month?

“We will continue to abide by the no public commentary direction in place.”

The next day, he rang a senior detective, Marcus Boorman, threatening to go public over the failure to charge Bruce Lehrmann, an inquiry has heard.

This was followed up by an email to Detective Boorman and Detective Supt Scott Moller.

“I trust you’re both well. Thank you for your time on the phone this morning Marcus,’’ Mr Sharaz said.

“Just confirming the desire of Brittany to have this process resolved sooner rather than later, and her expectation for a direction to be given as to what the next step is.

“She expects that direction by the end of the day as indicated by you both when you flew up to Brisbane. As always,happy to discuss over the phone.”

Boyfriend demanded cops charge Lehrmann

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller said that shortly after Mr Sharaz’s phone call to Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman, the ­instruct­ions were delivered to charge Bruce Lehrmann.

In his first day of evidence at the Sofronoff inquiry, he also said some police were so stressed by the investigation and the public pressure that they went on stress leave.

Superintendent Moller told the inquiry that the decision to charge was made against the backdrop of “the potential threat of Ms Higgins going public about the delay”.

“I swore the summons because I did not want to put any of my staff in the position where they had to do something they didn’t want to do, didn’t believe in, so I did it,” he said.

“I didn’t think there was enough evidence and then I received the director’s advice and certainly from his advice, I decided to go ahead.”

But he said that after receiving advice from the DPP he accepted the threshold to charge had been met.

On June 28, 2021, the DPP provided advice to ACT Policing that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Lehrmann.

The inquiry heard that the next day, an article was published on news.com.au on July 29, 2021.

In it, the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold flatly rejected Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews’ claim that prosecutors were the reason for the delay on the decision whether or not to charge the man.

The DPP Shane Drumgold confirmed in the article that his advice on whether or not charges should be laid were finalised and provided to the Australian Federal Police on June 28, the inquiry heard.

Mr Drumgold was not at liberty to reveal that advice at the time.

“The Director forwarded his advice to the AFP on Monday 28 June 2021, and the matter currently rests with the AFP,” Mr Drumgold told news.com.au.

The same day of the article, Mr Sharaz emailed Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates to ask “What’s going on? We’re reading this news about it. Is a decision going to be made as was forecast in the July 12 ­meeting?”

Ms Yates forwarded the email from Mr Sharaz to Inspector Boorman.

According to evidence at the inquiry, Mr Sharaz then called Inspector Boorman and indicated that Ms Higgins planned to release a media statement critical of how long police were taking to charge Mr Lehrmann.

“Discussion re Higgins contemplating media release due to recent media statements by Commissioner AFP and DPP,’’ Supt Moller’s diary notes record.

Superintendent Moller also alerted Commander Chew about the threat Ms Higgins would go public with complaints against police.

CCTV – why police showed Brittany Higgins

Supt Moller also revealed why police showed Brittany Higgins the CCTV of the night she alleged she was raped despite fears it could have “contaminated” her evidence.

He said it followed repeated request from Ms Higgins to see the video and followed police wrestling with the best way to adopt a “victim centric approach”

“So in a normal investigation, we would never show somebody evidence like that because it might influence their evidence later on in court,’’ he said.

“Under our victim centric model Ms Higgins continually asked to be shown that video.

“So you know, so troubled by that, we made a decision to show her, but to show her on tape. So we could capture the reaction if you like.

“But again, that’s the struggle we continually try to apply because, you know, wearing our investigators hats we go, ‘No, we should not show that evidence because it might taint it later on down the track’.”

“Under a victim centric model we go, ‘Well, this is really important for her to see this. We’re trying to support her. We need to support her.’

“So the decision we made was to support her and show her.”

Counsel assisting Joshua Jones asked if it might be a better way to avoid potentially tarnishing her memory.

“She had expressed on a number of occasions that she’d had a lot to drink and had blacked out and by showing her that video footage, your risked corrupting her evidence about that section of the night,’’ Mr Jones asked.

“Yeah, look. And that was the dilemma that we had really to be honest,’’ Superintendent Moller said.

“She was so keen to see that and, you know, to help her healing process that it was important to show her.”

Cop ‘begged’ Higgins to stop doing media

Supt Moller told an inquiry that when he pleaded with her to stop doing media that could prejudice a trial, Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates told him: “She can’t, Scott – she is the face of the movement now.”

He claimed Ms Yates was “more interested in Ms Higgins pushing the ‘#metoo’ movement than being committed to the upcoming trial”.

“This upset me and I remember being mad that the Victims of Crime Commissioner was using the investigation as a voice for reform before the trial had even been conducted,” he said.

Mr Drumgold remains on leave from his job at his own request after a week of bombshell evidence during which he was accused of misleading the ACT Supreme Court over a note of his dealing with Lisa Wilkinson.

Mr Drumgold was also asked to explain his decision to withhold a document written by Detective Scott Moller that has become known as the Moller report.

The trial collapsed following juror misconduct and never proceeded to a second trial based on the DPP’s fears that providing evidence a second time posed an unacceptable risk to the complainant. The DPP eventually dropped the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann.

Detective Scott Moller blocked Janet Albrechtsen’s calls

In his statement, Detective Moller reveals he was called multiple times by one columnist before he blocked her calls.

“At approximately 9.13am on Friday 9t December 2022 I received a call from journalist Ms Janet Albrechtsen, she introduced herself and explained she was covering the events surrounding the alleged sexual assault of Ms Brittany Higgins,’’ he wrote.

“We had a general conversation surrounding the events of the matter and she said, “why did you charge if you didn’t think you had sufficient evidence? Did you receive advice from the DPP, a letter or email detailing the sufficiency of evidence? “ I said, “ I’m sorry Janet I can’t comment any further.” I then ended the call.”

At approximately 1.58pm on Friday 9th December 2021 he received a second call from Ms Albrechtsen “I can’t comment on that,’’ he replied.

Approximately 3.48pm on Saturday 10th December 2022 he received another phone call from Ms Albrechtsen.

“Ms Albrechtsen commenced with a short discussion in relation to the Investigation. I said, “ Janet, as I said yesterday I can’t talk with you about this.“

On Wednesday 21st December 2022 I received another phone call from Ms Albrechtsen “I then ended the call and blocked her number so she could no longer make contact,’’ Supt Moller said.

‘Implausible’ claims

Supt Moller was also grilled on why he left out of his report that investigating officers believed Bruce Lehrmann’s own account of the night was “implausible”.

Mr Lehrmann has never been convicted of rape and the charge was dropped after the first trial was aborted. He maintains his innocence.

Supt Moller is the author of part of a series of documents that has become known as “the Moller report”, which included claims that police regarded Ms Higgins as “evasive” and “manipulative”.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, has raised concerns that the AFP documents “cherrypicked” evidence to focus on Ms Higgins’ credibility rather than focusing on Mr Lehrmann’s inconsistencies.

It was an issue the Chairman of the Inquiry Walter Sofronoff KC honed in on during evidence on Monday from Supt Moller, and he asked whether it was “a bit unbalanced” to focus on the complainant.

“I guess the question is why?’’ Mr Sofronoff said.

“That is, isn’t it a bit unbalanced or artificial, to look at the credit of a complainant without also looking at the plausibility of what the proposed possible defendant has said?”

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7zZqroqeelrlwutKwZJqbpGSwsMHRrapmpJGsfKO%2ByK2rmqapYrWqs8aipaxlkqTGp77InqWdZZSWw6qwjKyfmqqRr3qlscyapZ2dlGKwsLzSZpqhmaKcsm6u0a6anmWcmrWzucCnpWahnqbCqr7YZp%2BemaKofK%2Bx1qxkrKyfp8Zwg5VwnG%2BaYGmDpK3EcHCbamear6SvxXCZaZ5paYVxspA%3D