Bruce Lehrmann rape trial will continue into next week

The trial for the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins will span into a new week, despite closing arguments wrapping up on Wednesday.

The trial for the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins will span into a new week, despite closing arguments wrapping up on Wednesday.

The 12 person jury have deliberated for 13 hours so far, but have been unable to decide whether Bruce Lehrmann is guilty or not guilty of sexually assaulting the former Liberal staffer in Parliament House on March 23, 2019

Mr Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty of one count of sexual intercourse without consent.

The group, which is made up of eight women and four men, began their deliberations on Wednesday afternoon, with their discussions also stretching from 10am-4pm Thursday and Friday.

ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum called them back into the courtroom yesterday afternoon to let them “separate for the weekend” and warn them not to engage in conversation about the case.

“Just don’t discuss the case with anyone. Just shut the conversation down,” she said.

They will resume their deliberations at 10am on Monday.

Verdict ‘must be unanimous’

When giving her final directions on Wednesday, Chief Justice McCallum reminded the jury they must all be in agreement with whatever decision they arrive at.

“Your verdict, whether it be guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous,” she said.

“By whatever route you arrive at your decision, that final decision must be unanimous.”

She told the jury “no one can tell you how to decide this case”, saying how they perceive the evidence brought forward in the trial is up to them.

Chief Justice McCallum 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.

The trial for the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins will span into a new week, despite closing arguments wrapping up on Wednesday.

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.

However, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean “beyond any doubt”, the jury was told.

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 judgement.

Big issues jury told to consider

Prior to the Judge delivering her final directions, the prosecution and defence both delivered their closing arguments before the court.

Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold went first, cautioning the jury not to get “distracted by side issues or red herrings” when deliberating the outcome of the trial.

He told them the case was not about political parties, workplace cultures or whether Parliament House responded to reports of a security breach appropriately.

“It is certainly not about the experiences of other women in Parliament. And it’s not about the MeToo movement,” he said.

“This case is about what happened on a couch in a room on Saturday the 23rd of March 2019.”

The reason Mr Lehrmann went back to Parliament House on the night of the alleged assault wasn’t to get his keys or finish up some work, Mr Drumgold told the court.

Instead, he suggested it was to get a drunk and “very vulnerable” Ms Higgins alone, saying Parliament House was the “most convenient” place to do that.

“With the hope she would either not resist or not remember,” the court heard.

The 12 person jury have deliberated for 13 hours so far, but have been unable to decide whether Bruce Lehrmann is guilty or not guilty of sexually assaulting the former Liberal staffer in Parliament House on March 23, 2019.

Mr Drumgold said Ms Higgins was an “inherently credible witness” and would have to be “quite the actor” if she had fabricated her rape claim, as previously suggested by the defence.

He branded Ms Higgins a “witness of truth” who had told a consistent version of events over the years, suggesting it would be an “elaborate” lie to make up.

Mr Drumgold said Ms Higgins told everyone from close personal friends, to work colleagues, to police and even her own mother thought she was a changed person.

He said if the jury agreed she was a truthful witness then the only verdict they could return would be guilty.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer, Steven Whybrow, countered this in his own closing argument, telling the court that Ms Higgins was “prepared to say anything” when airing her allegations against his client.

He told the court that maybe Ms Higgins thought she could “say it and get away with it”, referring to her claims of sexual assault, adding this was the problem when the “person bringing the allegation is prepared to just say anything”.

Mr Lehrmann’s defence is that no sex occurred with Ms Higgins on the night in question, with Mr Whybrow instead suggesting the complainant only came forward with her claims after she thought her job was at risk.

“There was no sex. It didn’t happen,” he said.

He told the jury it would be “pretty embarrassing” if people heard that Ms Higgins had been out and gotten “hammered”, came back to Parliament House and was found undressed in the minister’s suite the next morning.

“Not good for your CV,” he told the jury.

The “kindest way” to Ms Higgins that this case can be summed up is that she doesn’t know what happened on the night of the alleged assault, Mr Whybrow told the court.

He said this was disregarding suggestions of deceit, dishonesty, secondary gain and personal interest.

“And just say, she doesn’t know. She doesn’t know what happened,” he said.

“You can’t be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she knows what happened.”

He suggested it was “reasonably possible” that the former Liberal staffer had “reconstructed events to the point where she now genuinely believes them to be true”.

“That doesn’t mean they are true,” Mr Whybrow told the court.