Recap: Brittany Higgins takes stand for third day at Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial

Today’s coverage is coming to an end.

Thank you for joining us. If you are just joining us now feel free to scroll through the blog.

We will be back early tomorrow morning when court resumes from 6am WST.

Previously, Ms Higgins said she had definitively recalled the kiss had occurred on a Wednesday night.

Mr Whybrow asks if she has been telling lies.

Ms Higgins says she was simply trying to help with the evidence she put forward, even though she was unsure of when the kiss had actually occurred.

On Wednesday, Ms Higgins had told the court the kiss occurred on a Friday.

The court adjourns until 6am WST tomorrow.

The court looks at the transcript of the second record of an interview with police and Ms Higgins on May 26, 2021.

Ms Higgins says she didn’t mention in either interview that she was kissed by Mr Lehrmann, saying she didn’t think of it until later.

“At the time it seemed insignificant,” says Ms Higgins.

She says she was talking with someone informally, possibly a journalist. She says she hadn’t told the police but made sure they knew afterwards.

Mr Whybrow says Ms Higgins “invented” the kiss.

She says she must have been confused about when the kiss was.

Yesterday, she said it was on March 15, however, today she says she is unsure.

Mr Whybrow brings up the email saying Ms Higgins needed help with the task “Drew” set her.

She said she made a mistake in the email, saying the task was set by Ms Reynolds.

In the criminal trial on October 6, Ms Higgins said she sent an email to Mr Lehrmann asking for his help with the task.

She says she was mistaken and says the email was sent earlier.

Ms Higgins initially said the task was set the week prior, however, now she says it was within a three-week period.

“I’m admitting when I get things wrong,” she says.

“I’m not sure, I just know I was given (the task).”

Mr Whybrow is finishing discussing the meeting with the police on April 1.

Ms Higgins doesn’t recall whether she wanted to progress with a formal complaint with police.

Mr Whybrow brings up previous emails, Ms Higgins says it was a task set for her by Senator Linda Reynolds.

Ms Higgins says she had sent an email to many asking them to help her, including Mr Lehrmann.

She remembers sitting down with Drew Burlin and the minister.

Ms Higgins says it was a work task five years ago to get electorate breakdowns. She says she didn’t know whether she was stuck.

“The reason you didn’t go to the doctor was because you hadn’t been sexually assaulted,” Mr Whybrow said.

Ms Higgins, tearful, says she didn’t go because she didn’t have a support network around her.

Ms Wilkinson’s lawyers, concerned about Ms Higgins’ welfare, object to Mr Whybrow’s line of questioning and force the court to adjourn.

Justice Lee says the court will reconvene at 13:00 WST.

Mr Whybrow enquires about Ms Higgins’ understanding of the night she was allegedly raped, suggesting there are holes in her story.

“You wanted to keep your job. You had passed out naked and were found overnight,” Mr Whybrow said.

“You didn’t have sex with anybody that night, that’s correct, isn’t it?”

“That’s insulting and incorrect, but you’re entitled to your opinion,” Ms Higgins said.

“That’s not my opinion,” Mr Whybrow replied.

Justice Lee has ordered a particular YouTube account - which has been posting recordings of the evidence of Ms Higgins in clear breach of his direct orders - remove the postings or else.

“I will direct the Principal Registrar of the court to take appropriate steps to identify the operator of the account, and consider what further steps should be taken,” Justice Lee said.

He has also said he will consider at the end of the day whether the livestream of the proceedings should stay online, following various abusive posts on social media.

The evidence of Ms Higgins has now continued.

After an already tense afternoon in court, Justice Michael Lee asks Ms Higgins his own question about her evidence regarding the draft of her book.

“You prepared a first draft. You tried your best and that time to recap the events as you recollected them at that time,” he says.

“But you recognize now with the benefit of having become aware of further information that, in a number of respects, it’s incorrect.”

He also mentions that the questioning may be edging into “Section 41 territory”.

That refers to Section 41 of the NSW Evidence Act, which covers “improper questions”.

Justice Lee references repetitiveness.

Shortly after, Mr Whybrow requested a ten-minute adjournment.

Mr Whybrow is now taking Ms Higgins to text messages she sent regarding the airing of an interview with one of the Parliament security staff on the ​ABC ‘Four Corners’ program​.

He puts it to her that she was worried about evidence contradictory to hers being made public.

Ms Higgins said she was upset about the fact someone was going to talk publicly about her alleged rape.

“I was upset at the prospect of the person who found me giving an interview - I thought it was pretty gross,” Ms Higgins said.

“It was the fact that someone was going to talk about my rape on TV. It felt weird, and I was upset about it.”

Mr Whybrow returns to the dress - and Ms Higgins begins to display clear upset at the topic.

“As I was being raped, it wasn’t my primary concern when my dress was. I was deeply more concerned about the penis in my vagina,” Ms Higgins says.

“You understand that I’m asserting that it is a fabrication that you were sexually assaulted, don’t you?” Mr Whybrow said.

“I understand that is your assertion. It’s insulting, but I understand it,” Ms Higgins replies.