Key Points
- The judge presiding over the Bruce Lehrmann trial told the jurors to "act impartially" as they retired to deliberate a verdict
- In closing arguments, the defence attacked the credibility of Brittany Higgins’ testimony.
This story contains allegations of sexual assault and may be distressing to some readers.
The jury has retired to consider its verdict in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann, who is accused of raping Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019.
On Tuesday, the jury of 16 people was reduced by ballot to 12. Four additional jurors were originally selected in case of sickness or if someone had to pull out mid-trial.
The final four men and eight women have been charged with determining if Mr Lehrmann is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of having sexual intercourse without consent with then-colleague Brittany Higgins in the office of Senator Linda Reynolds, who was Defence Industry Minister at the time of the alleged offence.
Mr Lehrmann has denied the allegation and has pleaded not guilty.
Former Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins alleges she was raped in an office in Parliament House. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch
She directed the jurors to “act impartially, without emotion or prejudice” and without fear of the public reaction to their verdict, in this high-profile case.
“You would have seen the number of journalists in court… they are practically hanging from the rafters,” Justice McCallum told the jury.
“You are not answerable, in this trial, to popular opinion.”
She warned the jury not to draw any inference from Mr Lehrmann’s decision not to give evidence in the trial.
“The accused did not give evidence… by which he did not go into the witness box… that is his right,” she said.
“He is entitled to say nothing... I direct you that the accused’s decision not to give evidence cannot be used … you must not draw any inference or draw any conclusion.”
Justice McCallum also referred to the evidence of Ms Higgins, saying if the jury is to find Mr Lehrmann guilty, it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt she is honest.
“Before you can convict the accused, you must examine her evidence carefully… you may look to see if it is supported by other evidence,” she said.
ACT directors of public prosecutions Skye Jerome and Shane Drumgold. Source: AAP / Mick Tsikas
“We search for consistency, members of the jury, as a badge of honesty," she said.
Justice McCallum later clarified “there is no legal requirement for the evidence of a complaint to be corroborated.”
Ms Higgins’ evidence is central to the matter, as she and Mr Lehrmann were the only people in the ministerial suite when the alleged rape is said to have occurred.
The jury has heard 10 days of evidence from 29 witnesses.
Prosecution, defence make final pitches to the jury
In closing arguments, Mr Lehrmann's defence lawyer attacked the credibility of Ms Higgins’ testimony, questioning if she really knew what happened on the night of the alleged rape and at one point suggesting she may be a con-artist.
“There’s a lot of issues you could consider in relation to Ms Higgins’ evidence in terms of what you might deem to be manipulation of evidence, or deception, or lies,” defence barrister Steven Whybrow said.
“We have these things called con-artists because demeanour is difficult to pick sometimes.”
He then clarified his comments to suggest Ms Higgins may just not remember what is alleged to have happened that night and has “reconstructed the events” in her mind.
“It may be, in my submission, reasonably possible, that she doesn’t know what happened and she has reconstructed events so that she believed they are true,” he told the jury.
“But it doesn’t mean what she is telling you actually happened.”
Defence barrister Steven Whybrow. Source: AAP / Mick Tsikas
“There is no evidence, other than Ms Higgins and her subsequent statements and her demeanour, to assist you in accepting what she said,” he continued.
“There is no DNA evidence, there is no contemporaneous medical complaint… in fact there are contemporaneous lies about medical [appointments].”
“We have, in my submission, a rational and plausible reason why she might have made a false complaint and not gone through with it,” Mr Whybrow said.
His argument is Ms Higgins made up the allegation to save her job, after being found by security asleep, naked, in the minister’s private office.
He said he “didn’t have to prove why” Ms Higgins reinstated the police complaint in 2021 but submitted “there are 325,000 reasons as to why”, in reference to Ms Higgins’ profitable book deal.
On Monday, the director of public prosecutions said Ms Higgins was an honest and reliable witness.
Shane Drumgold submitted Bruce Lehrmann took the intoxicated Brittany Higgins to Parliament house “because it was the most convenient place to get the drunk and vulnerable complainant alone.”
“She was very drunk, she was very vulnerable, and he took her there in the hope she wouldn’t resist, or she wouldn’t remember,” the prosecutor put to the jury.
The ACT Supreme Court now awaits a decision by the jury. Its decision must be unanimous.
If allegations set out in this story raise issues for you, or you or someone you know needs support - you can seek 24-hour help through 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit . In an emergency, call 000.
