Brittany Higgins rape trial updates: Jury deliberations to continue amid Bruce Lehrmann rape trial
The jury in the trial of the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins has completed its first full day of deliberations, considering a key three-word phrase.
No verdict has been reached yet in the trial for Bruce Lehrmann, the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins at Parliament House.
The 26-year-old has pleaded not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent.
Today was the first full day of deliberations, with the group of 12 jurors locked in discussions from 10am to 4pm in the ACT Supreme Court.
The group also had an hour of deliberation on Wednesday afternoon, with Chief Justice Lucy McCallum wrapping up her final directions to the jury at 3pm.
The jury is tasked with determining whether Mr Lehrmann is guilty or not guilty of one count of sexual intercourse without consent against Ms Higgins.
Chief Justice McCallum reminded the jury members not to read what is in the media or discuss the case with people at home.
They were also reminded they should only discuss the case when “all 12” of them are present.
They will reconvene at 10 on Friday to continue their deliberations.
Chief Justice McCallum told the court yesterday that four jury members from the original 16-person panel would need to be removed ahead of deliberations.
Chief Justice McCallum said the larger group was needed initially to allow for instances where jury members may become sick or find themselves in a situation where they can no longer be part of the jury.
All their juror numbers were placed in a ballot box and four were picked out at random, with two men and two women being released from the court.
The jury now consists of eight women and four men.
When giving her final directions to the jury, Chief Justice McCallum said it is up to them to come to a joint decision.
She pointed out that it is the job of both the defence and prosecution “to persuade” and what they say about the evidence is “not in itself evidence”.
The onus is not on the accused to prove his innocence, instead it is for the prosecutor to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court heard.
This does not mean the prosecution has to prove the truth of every statement made by every witness beyond reasonable doubt, the judge said.
“Nor does it mean you have to find in favour of the prosecutor on each and every fact,” she said.
Chief Justice McCallum highlighted that the key three-word phrase they needed to consider was beyond reasonable doubt, not “beyond any doubt”.
The jury was also told they might consider the nature of human memory and whether some events might be imprinted on a person’s memory more than others.
As an example, Chief Justice McCallum said she certainly remembers “where I was the last time the Swans won the premiership”.
She told the jury they must not let “sympathy or prejudice” sway their judgment.
NRL star charged with threatening police
Canberra Raiders veteran player Josh Papalii has been charged over an ugly confrontation with police inside a licensed venue, just weeks before he won a prestigious award.
Bachie star allegedly sold drugs to cop
A former Bachelor contestant is accused of supplying drugs, including to an undercover cop, and being a major player in a criminal network.
Major update after police reveal rally concern
There’s been a breakthrough in negotiations between NSW Police and pro-Palestine rally organisers after court action was taken to stop October 7 events.