Latest update on Bruce Lehrmann rape case before Toowoomba court

Former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann’s pre-trial hearing on two charges of rape has been delayed again, with his lawyer seeking missing documents.

Former parliamentary staffer Bruce Lehrmann leaves Toowoomba Courthouse at his first appearance on two charges of rape. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass

Former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann’s rape case has returned to court after his pre-trial hearing was delayed at his last appearance in March.

High-profile criminal lawyer Zali Burrows appeared on Mr Lehrmann behalf before Toowoomba District Court on Thursday, April 24 requesting a pre-trial hearing be delayed until an application for missing documents could be filed.

Thursday’s court mention marks the second time Mr Lehrmann has been represented by Ms Burrows after he fired his previous solicitor Rowan King from RK Law in March of this year.

Zali Burrows, lawyer for Bruce Lehrmann, arrives at Federal Court on Monday. Picture: NewsWire / Nikki Short

“On March 11 and 13, I made a request to the Director of Public Prosecutions for a complete consolidated brief just to ensure the defence had all the material,” Ms Burrows told the court.

“I did receive a brief from the former solicitor.

“On March 13 (the DPP) pretty much told me, over email, they had no intention to further respond to my disclosure request.

“Two days ago, we were served further materials with an exhibit list and a witness list and it now confirms that we are missing no less than nine witness statements and also important CCTV recordings.

“I would like to indicate to the court that we will be filing an application seeking directions for a disclosure application.

“This should not proceed until we can sort out the disclosure issue of the brief; I don’t see why it should get to the point of having to file for an application but it is what it is.”

Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco contested the need for a disclosure application to be brought forward, stating her office would be able to provide the material without the court’s interference.

“I would expect that if Ms Burrows just communicated with us what material she required, that we indicated was part of the brief, we would just provide that to her,” Ms Marco said.

“There is no need to file an application.”

The court heard prosecutions had already filed several applications of their own, including a special witness application, which Ms Marco wished to have listed for consideration.

“If it is amenable, the matter could in fact be listed for at least our application perhaps some time in June to allow sufficient time for Ms Burrows to get on top of that additional material she has stated she doesn’t have,” Ms Marco said.

Bruce Lehrmann and solicitor Zali Burrows in Hobart. Picture: Elise Kaine

Judge Dennis Lynch KC denied a request to set a pre-trial hearing date, stating the parties needed to come to an agreement themselves.

“The problem from (Ms Burrow’s) point of view is that she says she does not know what she does not have,” he said.

“I’m not going to enter into any dispute between the parties about what should or shouldn’t be disclosed at this point.

“If the parties cannot agree, and do it in a sensible way so that the matter can progress, then someone needs to file an application.”

He set down the matter for further mention on May 22 to allow the parties time to gather material and file applications.

“I expect that each of the parties will file any application that they wish to make so that the court can allocate dates for those applications to be finalised ahead of allocating any trial date,” he said.

Mr Lehrmann was not present at Thursday’s proceedings.

His appearance is not required at the next mention in May and his bail was enlarged.

At his last appearance on March 13, Ms Burrow’s requested Mr Lehrmann’s pre-trial hearing, originally set for March 27, be delayed to allow time for her to review the case.

“The basis … is one, I’m new on the record and need to get across the brief (of evidence),” she said.

Ms Burrows also raised technical issues accessing the digital brief provided by RK Law and informed the court prosecution would not send her a new copy.

“It would take a better course if the prosecution takes the USB from the former solicitor which contains the entire brief and then ensures I’m given a complete consolidated brief,” she said.

“I’m concerned because I’m instructed there is a third statement which has been provided by the (alleged victim) but the brief I have, I only have two statements.”

Judge Lynch said, at the time, he would not make formal directions to the office of prosecutions then vacated the pre-trial hearing and relisted the matter for mention Thursday, April 24.