Brittany Higgins and Bruce LehrmannABC

Bruce Lehrmann / Brittany Higgins missing video on the night of the alleged rape in Parliament House is set to be exposed in the Federal Court

The Australian Parliament House, on the 7th of July 2023, refused to give video of the night of the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins to the Federal Court, which put the Australian Parliament House in breach of a subpoena, in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Channel 10, Lisa Wilkinson and the ABC.

But the Australian Parliament House gave the video to Channel 7 for the Bruce Lehrmann interview a few weeks ago. Or did Linda Reynolds or Michaelia Cash give it to Channel 7?

The matter heats up on Monday, 17th July 2023 in the Federal Court, when a representative of the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) will be forced onto the witness stand to give evidence under oath and tell the court where the video is.

On the 7th of July when the matter was last in court, I published the below video on the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) refusing to hand over the video:

(Click here to watch the above video on YouTube)

On the same day, the 7th of July 2023, that the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) failed to hand over the video barrister Sue Chrysanthou, acting for Lisa Wilkinson, made it clear that she wanted someone from the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) to show up to court and answer questions as to why they had not complied with the subpoena to hand over the video when Channel 7 had broadcast the video in their interview with Bruce Lehrmann.

I published the below Tweet on the same day:

While Channel 7 did play some of the video in their interview with Bruce Lehrmann it was obviously edited and Lisa Wilkinson and her lawyers want the full video as they are running the truth defence and will try to prove on the balance of probabilities that Bruce Lehrmann did rape Brittany Higgins. 

On the 7th of July the judge, Justice Lee, issued the below orders which order someone from the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) to show up to court and give evidence on the 17th of July:

The return of the following subpoenas to produce documents be adjourned to 9:30am on 17 July 2023:

(a) the DPS subpoena;


3. By 10:15am on 12 July 2023, any party intending to make an application to examine any subpoenaed party referred to in Order 2 notify the legal representative of the subpoenaed party as to their intention to make such an application.

4. If notification is given pursuant to Order 3, the relevant subpoenaed party be available for examination at 9:30am on 17 July 2023, should such examination be ordered. (Click here to read the full court orders)

On the 14th of July I published the below video which explains in more detail the hearing set down for Monday (17/7/23) when the DPS will be grilled on the missing video.

(Click here to watch the above video on YouTube)

The missing video and how it was leaked is one issue that should have some light shed on it on Monday. But other documents and recordings have also been leaked to Channel Seven, News Corp and other media and I published an article on the matter on the 15th of June titled “Bruce Lehrmann and his barrister Steve Whybrow should face contempt of court charges for leaking documents to harass Brittany Higgins” which starts off:

Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister for his rape trial Steve Whybrow confessed in a witness statement, as per below, to aiding and abetting Murdoch propagandist Janet Albrechtsen, who writes for The Australian, with a leaked police document known as the “Moller Report” and other documents in a deliberate attempt to harass Brittany Higgins.

When put together with other facts it becomes obvious Steve Whybrow, with Bruce Lehrmann’s approval, is the person who has illegally leaked other documents, recordings and possibly text messages from the rape trial to News Corp and Seven West Media which could and should see Mr Whybrow and Mr Lehrmann charged with contempt of court.

Channel 10 have made a formal complaint to the federal police regarding the latest leaked material and ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum could potentially institute contempt proceedings. (Click here to read the article and watch the video)

Channel 10’s lawyers wrote to the various media and parties asking who leaked the court documents and a separate recording of a Channel 10 interview. While most media and parties did not respond to Channel 10’s lawyers Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation lawyers Mark O’Brien Legal were happy to throw Lehrmann’s rape trial barrister Steve Whybrow under a bus for being the prime suspect for illegally leaking evidence to Murdoch propagandist Janet Albrechtsen as per the below letter:

Mark Obrien Legal - Bruce Lehrmann

I sent barrister Steve Whybrow a message on Twitter asking if he would like to respond but he hasn’t at this point. (Click here to see the message)

Monday will be a big day in the Federal Court as we start to get closer to the truth about the former Government’s role in the cover-up.

But it is the current government who control the Department of Parliamentary Services as the “DPS reports to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament (the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives)”. So, it will be interesting to see what happens from here on and I wonder if the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) are watching.

I will likely do an update on the above matter on my YouTube channel after the hearing on Monday. (Click here for my YouTube channel)

Update 17/7/23: The Department of Parliamentary Services has now handed over the missing video, although it has not been verified yet as they just handed it over in court, to avoid giving evidence under oath. I have posted a a video with the update here:

Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.

If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.

Thank you for your support.

For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.

9 replies »

  1. As it is continually suggested, the current Government is no better than the one they replaced when it comes to cover-ups and protecting their mates no matter what involving corruption or bad behaviour… refusing to supply court ordered documents etc, contempt of court elsewhere

  2. No wonder I gave up the practise of law as I discovered that all lawyers (well the majority of the ones I had to deal with) are little more than professional liars for their clients

    • Hi, Brad, welcome to the Land of the Disillusioned. The hardest part I found in litigation was finding a lawyer to sue another lawyer. No one advertises what could be one of the most lucrative businesses in Oz, even if the profession might regard him/her as a pariah. The last couple of years in various news comments, I pushed the stats of solicitors and barristers disbarred, fined or censured by Legal Services Commissioners for the various States. The figure might now be over a thousand in the last two decades, yet KCA seems to be the only media outlet that really seeks change. Who knows what the real figure of legal hanky-panky is, when most disgruntled citizens tend to give up when swindled?

  3. I’d like to tune into the telecast of the case tomorrow and I have been to the Federal Court website, but I cannot seem to be able to find the link (URL) for it.
    Are you able to assist please KCA? I would be most grateful. Thank You.
    IMHO, “Cash + Reynolds” might be a good name for a TV series, researching infamous villains in Australian history.
    Perhaps they are saving the tape for the Easter Egg hunt, next year. Ha!

  4. I’m a bit confused. Why is the full video so important? What is it likely to reveal? Who has more to lose by this video being made public – Lehrmann or Higgins?

  5. Maybe the importance of the full video lies not so much in what it contains, but rather in who made it disappear and why?

  6. If it was to be claimed by whoever fronts the Federal Court hearing today from Parliamentary Services that the recordings are mysteriously ‘lost’ then what avenue is available to the presiding judge to take action in any form whatsoever apart from referring the matter to AFP when one would have thought if the AFP carried out a professional investigation in the first place, that the AFP would still hold a copy of the images of the night in question.
    From what has been reported via KCA, the large array of contradictory evidence from different officers within AFP, one could suggest that AFP could have leaked the images and in the meantime, destroyed the evidence to protect their own.
    Today could be interesting but not surprising as to who tells the most lies.

Leave a Reply