Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer quizzed over Toowoomba rape trial subpoenas
With his rape charges returning to a Toowoomba court yet again, Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team has faced questions over their unusual court requests.
Toowoomba
Don't miss out on the headlines from Toowoomba. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A court has questioned the validity of multiple requests made by Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team in preparation for his rape trial.
The hearing, which was pushed back last month to allow the Crown to file all evidence, will dispute multiple court applications including disclosure applications filed by Ms Burrows requesting pages from a Cellebrite report detailing the contents of the complainant’s phone among other police evidence.
Ms Burrows told the court she had yet to file an outline of submissions for the hearing as she recently became aware there was potential unseen evidence on a damaged hard drive in police possession.
“We have received information that was contained in one of the redacted police notebooks which raises the possible destruction of (relevant) material,” Ms Burrows said.
“(It) is basically a hard drive that the police officer in charge placed all the material and evidence and that subsequently has been damaged.
“We have made a request that be made available for an independent IT interrogation.”
Judge Benedict Power KC also questioned the particulars of multiple subpoenas requested by Ms Burrows on behalf of Mr Lehrmann.
One such subpoena, filed to the court at 1.55pm on Friday, July 18, sought to compel an individual police officer to give evidence at the hearing and supply a wide array of police documents.
“The list of things (the officer) was required to produce was very, very wide ranging,” Judge Power said.
“It does not appear to be restricted to documents which would be immediately produced by them, or even documents that would be immediately in their control; it requires all police notebooks, all recordings, all diaries in respect to the investigation of Bruce Lehrmann, and all Queensland Police reports.
“I’m not meaning to say you are not able to issue a subpoena … but you’ve directed this to an individual police officer, the proper person to subpoena for material like this is the Commissioner of Police – why was this issued to the individual police officer?”
Ms Burrows said the officer had made a note that they controlled a hard drive including information sought by Mr Lehrmann’s legal team.
“In their notebook, they made reference to the fact they were in possession of the hard drive, they personally had the hard drive,” Ms Burrows said.
Judge Power rejected Ms Burrows’ reasoning, on the grounds the officer did not have the power to compel the evidence.
“It’s not their document, police officers don’t individually control material that comes into their possession,” he said.
“Surely (Ms Burrows) you must be aware that in order to compel the production of documents held by a police service, in this case the Queensland Police Service, you need to issue a subpoena to the proper officer which, in this case, is the Commissioner of Police.”
Judge Power also queried aspects of Ms Burrow’s applications, suggesting elements of her request would be satisfied by the subpoena.
“You sought to have a subpoena issued that, in a practical sense, was requiring the Queensland Police Service to produce everything that the police have in relation to the investigation of Bruce Lehrmann.
“That was utilising the power of subpoena, that was not something being done with regard to any disclosure obligations.
“I’m concerned that there would be duplication and waste of court time if in fact there was a subpoena issued that covered issues (on the disclosure application).”
Ms Burrows indicated they would no longer press matters addressed in her disclosure application that could be met by an eventual subpoena request.
Another subpoena filed by Ms Burrows last Friday afternoon requested the complainant give evidence at the hearing on Friday, going against typical court procedure.
“Ms Burrows you would surely understand that there are restrictions on cross examinations of complainants, particularly in sex matters,” Judge Power said.
“On what basis did you think you could simply, without reference to the court, require the complainant to come and give evidence?”
Ms Burrows initially said she only wished to question the complainant regarding their interactions with police; however accepted the judge’s remarks, stating she would not push the matter further.
Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco confirmed the Crown would be ready for Friday’s hearing.
Mr Lehrmann is charged with two counts of rape arising from an incident in Toowoomba in 2021.
Prosecution alleges Mr Lehrmann met the complainant on a night out in Toowoomba where the pair were drinking together.
He is accused of raping the woman without protection after the pair engaged in consensual sex earlier in the night.
Mr Lehrmann has denied the allegations against him.
More Coverage
Originally published as Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer quizzed over Toowoomba rape trial subpoenas
Australia’s largest solar farm in limbo after egg farm appeal
A plan to create Australia’s largest grid-connected solar farm has hit a major roadblock after a key piece of its infrastructure was taken to court by a farming operation.
Watch: Alleged thieves caught shortly after bumbling burglary
Two people allegedly tried to bust into a Toowoomba business, walked away with little and found themselves in handcuffs moments later. WATCH THE VIDEO