Lawyer’s bombshell claim
Discussion with police recounted
Bruce Lehrmann’s defence lawyer has told an inquiry a police officer who said he would quit if the former Liberal staffer was found guilty was experiencing a “moral trauma” at the time.
Steven Whybrow SC insisted he could “read between the lines” that the police thought the case was weak, but conceded no officer made that view clear until the jury was sent to deliberate.
Giving evidence to a public inquiry into the aborted trial, Mr Whybrow recounted a conversation he had with Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman.
“During the course of the trial. I got no impression that any of the police wanted the trial to be not guilty or were not doing their job professionally,” he said.
“After the jury had left (to deliberate) I had that conversation … He was somewhat stressed. I believe my impression was sort of a moral trauma.
“He expressed the view that he thought (Mr Lehrmann) was innocent.”
Mr Whybrow said while he had “never had a case like this before” it was the first time a police officer had expressed such a view to him during a trial.
Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexually assaulting his former colleague Brittany Higgins before the trial was aborted due to jury misconduct.
Mr Lehrmann has continually denied the allegation and the DPP declined to pursue a second trial due to concerns over Ms Higgins’ mental health and dropped the charges.
The defence barrister is the second witness to appear before an inquiry into how criminal justice handled the highprofile case.
The inquiry was sparked by a letter from Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC to the ACT’s Chief Police Officer, in which he raised concerns about “political and police conduct” during the case. In the letter he repeated allegations, first raised in court, that Senator Reynolds had sought transcripts of the trial from the defence to tailor her own evidence, was coaching the defence in its cross-examination, and had organised her partner to attend court to listen to the trial.
Senator Reynolds employed both Mr Lehrmann and Mr Higgins at the time of the alleged incident. She denied the accusations when they were put to her in court last year.
Mr Whybrow told the inquiry he had disclosed two texts to Mr Drumgold out of court to allay his fears of interference and he was left “pissed off and angry” the information was used against her.
“It was an appalling mischaracterisation of what had occurred,” Mr Whybrow said, referring to a furious email he sent Mr Drumgold.
“I don’t hold a candle for Senator Reynolds, but (the suggestions) were unfair and as far as I was aware, untrue and from the perspective of defence played on so this socalled political cover up conspiracy … when there wasn’t any actual factual evidence for it,” he said.
The Liberal senator had sought transcripts for her lawyer's use and suggested messages between Ms Higgins and another former member of her team, Nicole Hamer, may be “revealing”.
Mr Whybrow said that line of inquiry had already been “chased down” by defence.
“(The DPP) put these positive things to Linda Reynolds, to and including, that she was trying to tell me how to do my job, giving me cross examination tips” Mr Whybrow said.
“I was angry and pissed off. I wrote this email to him that what I considered was improper conduct. I’m very concerned that you put it as a positive attestation.”
“He didn’t say ‘were you giving cross-examination tips. He said, ‘you were giving … tips’ and there’s a significant difference.”
The defence barrister was also concerned that Mr Drumgold used the exchange in his closing argument to infer a possible political conspiracy was afoot.