The Brittany Higgins saga

is not yet over. It should have been over long ago. Perhaps it should never have occurred in the first place.

I am no "conspiracy theorist". I am of the view there are generally good, rational reasons for things that have happened.  It may make life less fun but it definitely makes life more comfortable.

The Higgins saga is a curiosity rather than a conspiracy. Ms Higgins alleges she had non-consensual sex with another member of staff in the office of a then Senator at the parliament building in our nation's capital. The story did not come out immediately. It took Ms Higgins two years to go to the police. That in itself is enough for some conspiracy theorists especially as her story about the incident was in the public domain by then. When it did enter the public domain there were  accusations that she had not been supported by her bosses in the office. The damage was great enough to undermine the government of the day. It was a story which caused great harm to all concerned. The then Opposition pounced on it and used it to help them bring down a government at the next election.

The matter was taken to court as an allegation of rape, an allegation which was never proven. Ms Higgins was alleged to be unable to continue with the case due to the mental stress it was causing. It was receiving immense publicity. Despite the lack of a conviction Ms Higgins received a multi-million dollar payout from the new government on the grounds she would never be able to work again. 

There is a widespread view that someone who claims to have been raped is to be believed and many people will say they believe the story told by Ms Higgins is true. To say otherwise is to bring the wrath of the PC police on your head.  In the case of Ms Higgins very few people dare to question what she has alleged. 

Despite claims to the contrary Ms Higgins had the support of her then boss - the Senator. She also had the support of the office staff.  She was advised to go to the police. I have a friend in similar circumstances. She lost her job and her reputation making a similar allegation against a public figure. I know how hard it can be to go to the police and say, "This was done to me." I also know that many women are not believed when they do make a complaint. It is particularly difficult to make if you have been drinking alcohol.

In this case Ms Higgins does appear to have been successful in being believed, certainly the matter ended up in court. I have never read the transcripts but what was reported was interesting if you find sordid details of any interest. Certainly the media was very sympathetic towards her and so was the now government. I cannot remember any other case where a multi-million dollar payout has been made even when a case has not been concluded and no finding of guilt on the part of the alleged perpetrator has been made.  It is little wonder there are multiple conspiracy theories floating around the case.

Ms Higgins own behaviour has added another layer to the already complex web covering the incident. She "tweeted" some statements alleging that, among other things, she had not had the support of her former boss. It may be that she believed this at the time she wrote them but by then the Senator had had enough. The tweets were, in her view, defamatory. There was evidence to show she had been very supportive. She asked for an apology and did not receive one. In her view her reputation was damaged. When she had exhausted other options she took Ms Higgins to court - and won.

It is only a partial victory however. The financial cost has been huge. The sum awarded in damages is substantial but it is unlikely to cover the cost of taking the matter to court. It is also likely all this has occurred with no real result. Supporters of Ms Higgins are, to put it mildly, not pleased by the result. They are strongly opposed to it. They want the Senator to be held responsible for something which did not occur. They want Ms Higgins to be free of any responsibility for what may or may not have occurred.

Yes, it is all interesting in its way. It is not yet over. Costs still have to be awarded in this case. It may well be that there will be "no order as to costs" meaning each side must pay their own. If that is so then the Senator will still have incurred a severe financial loss. 

All this bothers me because the initial case has never been resolved. The alleged perpetrator took the matter to court too. He also claims defamation. The judge found him guilty "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt". It is a finding which has caused quite a stir in legal circles and more than one suggestion that it was wrong. 

It may well be that it was not simply Ms Higgins alleged mental state which caused the abandonment of the trial. The likelihood that the prosecution believed they would lose is a major source of concern even among those who believe Ms Higgins' story. 

Whatever is going on the matter is not finished yet. Does it mean that there was a successful attempt to bring down a government? Or does it mean that everything which occurred was a sordid chain of events that happened to occur at the time? Is there something more to the story? 

I have no idea but the conversation I had to endure hearing on the train yesterday was interesting to say the least.