A senior police officer who investigated Brittany Higgins's rape allegation has rejected accusations that police officers "intimidated" her.
On the ninth day of the ACT board of inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann over the alleged rape, there were sometimes-tense exchanges between Detective Superintendent Scott Moller and Mark Tedeschi, the barrister representing ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold.
The board of inquiry is examining how the case against Mr Lehrmann was managed by criminal justice agencies.
On Tuesday, while being questioned about how police handled the investigation, Superintendent Scott Moller was asked if an attempt to interview ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates as a possible witness in the trial was to block her from accompanying Ms Higgins into the trial — a suggestion Superintendent Moller refuted.
Mr Tedeschi then asked Superintendent Moller if it was "inappropriate", or confronting, for five police officers to surround Ms Higgins while she was sitting on a "low couch" with Ms Yates at the conclusion of a second police interview.
Superintendent Moller denied that investigators acted in a way that would go against their usual victim-centric approach.
"Our whole strategy is to make them feel comfortable so it's not confronting … we go to great lengths to try and make it not confronting," he said.
Mr Tedeschi said the multiple police officers in the room might have led Ms Higgins, or any complainant in a sexual assault matter, to feel "completely unsupported" by police.
Police critical of Ms Yates
Superintendent Moller told the inquiry Ms Yates had made police officers uncomfortable, and that it had "complicated the investigation".
"They weren't comfortable … the process was more difficult in that they couldn't communicate freely," Superintendent Moller said.
"Ms Yates was speaking for Ms Higgins and not letting her speak."
He said it was inappropriate for Ms Yates to be Ms Higgins's support person inside court during the trial, as she was the head of an organisation and in the role of Victims of Crime Commissioner.
Last year, the jury in the trial was discharged after it was revealed a juror had brought material into the jury room that had not been provided as evidence during the trial.
Mr Lehrmann has maintained his innocence and there have been no findings against him after the trial was abandoned.
'If it were my choice I wouldn't proceed, but it is not my choice'
On Monday, Superintendent Moller told the inquiry that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Lehrmann, but was told by ACT Police Commander Michael Chew to "get it done".
He said on Tuesday, Commander Chew had told him that he also would not lay charges if it were his choice, despite the DPP communicating that there was enough evidence to do so.
In Superintendent Moller's diary notes from the time, he said Commander Chew had told him:
"If it were my choice I wouldn't proceed, but it is not my choice.
"There is too much political interference."
Superintendent Moller said that decision was "disappointing given there is insufficient evidence".
Senior officer sought independent legal advice
The inquiry also heard Superintendent Moller sought independent legal counsel on the matter after voicing concerns to superiors that he did not believe charges should be laid.
He described it as "best practice to get supplementary advice".
But he said the Chief Police Officer and his commander instead told him to seek advice from Mr Drumgold, who Superintendent Moller said had "lost objectivity" in the matter.
"The reason why you wanted to get independent legal advice was that you didn't like that the DPP seemed accepting that there was a viable case against Mr Lehrmann?" Mr Tedeschi asked Superintendent Moller.
"Independent legal advice was a good strategy," Superintendent Moller replied.
He again told the board of inquiry that he and other investigating officers had been under significant pressure from the DPP to prosecute Mr Lehrmann.
'We didn't view the evidence the same way'
Mr Tedeschi then put to Superintendent Moller that when he later met with Mr Drumgold, he only voiced his frustrations over inaccuracies in Ms Higgins's version of events, not Mr Lehrmann's.
Superintendent Moller disagreed with Mr Tedeschi that he had only highlighted weaknesses in Ms Higgins's version.
Mr Tedeschi questioned why the Superintendent didn't include details in the report about Ms Higgins's intoxication on the night of the alleged incident or any corroboration of evidence that would amount to sexual assault, referring to Ms Higgins being found naked in Parliament House.
"Did the director [Mr Drumgold] then say to you that those weaknesses are not automatically inconsistent with an honest and believable complaint … and he would need to see the entire brief for context?" Mr Tedeschi asked.
The Superintendent said he didn't recall those exact words, but said that Mr Drumgold had over many months had been dismissive of police concerns.
"I was worried about the investigation certainly … I was concerned because we didn't view the evidence the same way as Mr Drumgold," he said.
This disagreement later resulted in what has been informally referred to as the Moller Report — a briefing document prepared by Superintendent Moller for Commander Chew — in which he referred to Ms Higgins as "evasive", "uncooperative" and "manipulative".
The cross-examination of Superintendent Moller will continue tomorrow.
News Corp defends front page of beer-drinking DPP
Inquiry chair Walter Sofronoff opened the proceedings on Monday, by criticising last Friday's front page of News Corp masthead The Australian, which featured a photograph of the ACT's chief prosecutor.
Mr Sofronoff wrote to The Australian editor, Michelle Gunn, to seek justification as to why the newspaper had published a photo of Mr Drumgold drinking a beer in the driveway of his home, accompanied by the headline: "Crown lager or Drumgold bitter? Prosecutor calls beer o'clock".
In his letter, Mr Sofronoff was critical of the decision to follow Mr Drumgold to his home and photograph him while he was on a leave of absence from the role of DPP.
Ms Gunn replied in a letter tendered in the inquiry, defending the decision.
"While it is our firm view the taking and publication of the photo is not unlawful, we do consider it necessary to address the largely editorial issue you have raised about the purpose of the photo," she said.
"It is not, in The Australian's view, surprising, remarkable or inappropriate to publish a photo of a person on leave to accompany an article about that person having taken leave."
She also wrote of the "considerable resources" the broadsheet had allotted "to provide full and in-depth coverage" of the board of inquiry.
Discussing the issue at the beginning of the inquiry on Monday, Mr Sofronoff said he was concerned that those giving evidence to the inquiry may be affected by the newspaper's front page.
"My real worry is that the witnesses who have been willing to help me will think this is part of the price … being made fun of in the national media," he said.
"This kind of publication risks interfering with the course of my inquiry — it risks interfering with my ability to fulfil my statutory duty."
Ms Gunn responded to the notion that the publishing of the photograph was making fun of Mr Drumgold.
"The publication of the photo was certainly not intended to demean or humiliate Mr Drumgold," she said.
