The Bruce Lehrmann case has ripped through the ACT over the last five years, leaving behind a trail of destruction.
A sexual assault inside Parliament House, proved on the civil balance of probabilities, has stress-tested the legal jurisdiction like perhaps no case before it.
"The administration of justice in the ACT has been the subject of unprecedented attention in the past year," Chief Justice Lucy McCallum wrote last August in a notice to practitioners.
Was the territory ready for the case and the unforgiving media scrutiny that followed?
What is now being done to securely patch the cracks it exposed and how damaged is the faith in key institutions?
Many have decreed the case poisonous, infecting anything it touches. That appears true when delving into the path it has unceremoniously carved through the ACT and the questions it has left unanswered.
The criminal trial
According to the Federal Court's Justice Michael Lee, Mr Lehrmann raped his intoxicated and unconscious Liberal staffer colleague Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in the early hours of March 23, 2019.
Three-and-a-half years later, the man would face a criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court.
It might have been sooner if not for highly-publicised hiccups, including a "fraught with danger" Logies speech delivered by journalist Lisa Wilkinson and legally approved by Network Ten.
"Regrettably and with gritted teeth", Chief Justice McCallum delayed the trial for four months.
A House of Representatives apology speech by then-prime minister Scott Morrison had earlier threatened to do the same.
As expected, media attention on the criminal trial was intense and every moment meticulously covered. The harsh brightness of a national spotlight was felt by most in the courtroom.
But apparently not by one juror, who ignored the judge's repeated and stern warnings and brought an academic paper about false sexual assault allegations into the jury room.
Were it not for a sheriff's officer inadvertently knocking over the juror's folder during a routine tidy up, the problematic document may never have been discovered.
The jury was dismissed, the trial aborted and the charge of sexual intercourse without consent levelled at Mr Lehrmann eventually dropped over fears for Ms Higgins' mental health.
Despite causing a crucial sliding doors moments in the saga, several days into deliberations, the juror faced no punishment.
Earlier this month, the ACT Legislative Assembly made juror misconduct of the like punishable by up to two years in prison in an attempt to avoid the emotional and financial distress of retrials.
The warning is now black and white. But that's too little too late for the Lehrmann case and its famed derailing.
The question remains, how many more times have jurors blatantly done the wrong thing and not been accidentally caught out?
The board of inquiry
The territory would be tested again months later, when a televised probe into the case left several more reputationally wounded.
The board of inquiry, funded by territory taxpayers and demanding an uncontroversial process, would only muddy the troubled saga further. And not simply due to what it uncovered.
Chair Walter Sofronoff KC leaked an "embargoed" copy of his 839-page report, scathing of how Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC handled Mr Lehrmann's prosecution, to a journalist.
The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen, obtaining the report a day before the ACT government, sensationally published its findings early.
Days after the report's leaking, Mr Drumgold resigned as the territory's top prosecutor.
"While I acknowledge I made mistakes, I strongly dispute that I engaged in deliberate or underhanded conduct in the trial or that I was dishonest," he said in a statement.
Last year, Mr Drumgold was partly vindicated after launching legal action seeking to quash the report.
Justice Stephen Kaye found Mr Sofronoff's relationship with "fellow traveller" Ms Albrechtsen, which included regular communication during the inquiry itself, gave rise to an apprehended bias.
But the judge ruled that, independently of the apprehended bias issue, it had not been established that seven out of eight contested findings made by Mr Sofronoff were legally unreasonable.
The ACT government later refused to throw out the report's recommendations.
Having multiple board members heading up the inquiry, the territory's attorney-general later conceded, may have helped avoid another unfathomable twist.
The end to this particular chapter remains unwritten, with the ACT Integrity Commission now considering whether to investigate Mr Sofronoff's conduct.
Whether a full investigation is launched remains to be seen.
'Wake-up call' for cops and lawyers
ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury previously called Mr Lehrmann's aborted criminal trial a "wake-up call" for police and prosecutors.
Mr Rattenbury said the inquiry found poor individual behaviour and choices were compounded by heightened media and political attention.
Officers giving evidence during the inquiry revealed several concerns about ACT investigations, including the sexual assault team being an inexperienced "training ground" for detectives and lacking specialist training.
One senior constable heavily involved in Mr Lehrmann's case admitted there was confusion among police officers about the legal threshold for charging people in the ACT.
A review into the territory's Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team is soon expected to publish a report.
Mr Drumgold's "misbehaviour", Mr Sofronoff said, included the silk having "preyed on [a] junior lawyer's inexperience" during the preparation of an affidavit and mishandling a crucial freedom of information request.
Mr Sofronoff's 10 recommendations included reviewing evidence disclosure, evidence brief compiling, how sensitive evidence is stored, retrial decisions, the Victims of Crime Act, and collaboration on complaints.
Crucially, the former Queensland judge recommended ACT Policing, in consultation with the prosecuting office, formulate a policy to define the threshold to charge.
He recommended training police officers in a number of key areas relating to the recommendations. The government has agreed to the recommendations and said it is actively working to implement them.
But the damage to public confidence is undoubtedly already done.
Taxpayer costs
"Far from ideal."
That's how Mr Rattenbury described the board of inquiry's many legal bills, telling media last month he hoped there would be no further litigation.
The comment came a day after it was revealed the territory had paid Senator Linda Reynolds $90,000 in damages over Mr Drumgold's accusation the politician sought to interfere in a police investigation.
The government formally apologised for the comments, which were found to be defamatory.
Local taxpayers have contributed to more payouts, including the $150,000 the ABC forked out to avoid fighting defamation claims in court.
Mr Lehrmann sued the national broadcaster for its decision to run a live broadcast of Ms Higgins addressing the National Press Club in February 2022.
But the largest known bill footed by Australians remains the $2.445 million the Commonwealth government paid Ms Higgins shortly after Mr Lehrmann's trial fell through.
The deed of settlement, in which the government accepted no liability, included $400,000 for "hurt, distress and humiliation" and $1.48 million relating to loss of earning capacity.
Justice Lee's recent judgment included findings against a purported political cover-up of Ms Higgins' rape claim, which he described as the "major motif" of the The Project interview that led to unsuccessful defamation action.
The findings have sparked debate over the Commonwealth figure, which was settled around the central allegation of sexual assault but included unproven others like Ms Higgins being pressured to stay silent.
On the one hand, Richard Ackland, editor of law journal Justinian, told this masthead the compensation Ms Higgins received was modest while her "crucifixion" continues.
"Considering the attacks and invasions of privacy to which she has been subjected," the Gold Walkley award-winning journalist said.
On the other hand, former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy KC has said the National Anti-Corruption Commission would have grounds to look into the matter.
That too, remains to be seen.
Contempt
Because Mr Lehrmann's criminal trial apparently didn't birth enough problems, the former Liberal staffer may have also leaked confidential documents from those proceedings to Seven Network.
Justice Lee's 324-page judgment included findings about Mr Lehrmann giving the network access to untendered evidence from his criminal trial, which would have breached an implied court undertaking.
Mr Lehrmann in effect denied this during his defamation trial and Seven has refused to reveal how it obtained the evidence, which included Ms Higgins' private text messages.
Other media also obtained certain evidence.
The judge made clear it was not his role to pursue this alleged Harman undertaking breach and he only had to satisfy himself Mr Lehrmann made false representations about the matter.
Contempt action against Mr Lehrmann would have to be launched in the territory's Supreme Court.
And as contempt expert Professor David Rolph told The Canberra Times earlier this week, it would have to be initiated by the ACT's prosecuting office and investigated all over again.
Acting ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Williamson SC declined to comment on possible action and the burning question may fall on incoming director Victoria Engel SC, who arrives next month.
"Harman undertakings are a substantial requirement of the justice system," Mr Ackland, who recently wrote about the legal obligation's history, said.
"To uphold the proper administration of justice it would be appropriate for the prosecuting authorities to examine the prospect of bringing contempt charges against Lehrmann."
Neither Mr Rattenbury nor ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates, who is on leave, responded to questions about the message sent to sexual assault complainants if the alleged breach is not investigated.
Despite the government claiming territory laws pertaining to the Harman undertaking are in line with other jurisdictions, sexual assault complainants will rightly not feel comforted by that fact.
Whether some will choose not to come forward out of fear their sensitive information is not safe in the hands of interested parties remains to be seen.
Mr Lehrmann's possible contempt troubles in the ACT are also uncertain.
Thus, the running theme of the saga and its future continues.
What's next?
An appeal of Justice Lee's historic judgment? Integrity probe? Corruption investigation? Contempt action? More legal stoushes? Or will this case finally go off into the night?
"The Lehrmann saga is full of surprises, so it would be foolish to discount any major new development," Mr Ackland said.
"Of course, there are far-flung and sprawling developments in WA with Linda Reynolds pursuing Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz over some tweets that no one remembers or cares about."
The ACT was evidentently not prepared for the destructive firestorm following Mr Lehrmann or for the collateral damage the case would cause.
The attorney-general has admitted there is work to be done to improve the experience of sexual assault complainants but also urged Canberrans not to let "a case like no other" discourage them from "seeking justice".
For lack of a better phrase - the jury is still out on that.
