Share and Follow
Bruce Lehrmann‘s defence lawyer was ‘p*ssed off’ and ‘angry’ when a prosecutor leading the rape trial accused Linda Reynolds of sending her husband to the court to interfere with the hearing, an inquiry has heard.
The Board of Inquiry, led by former Queensland solicitor-general Walter Sofronoff, is examining the actions of Shane Drumgold, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions and police during the investigation and trial of Mr Lehrmann in October last year.
Mr Lehrmann was accused of raping Brittany Higgins in the former parliamentary office of Senator Reynolds in 2019 and was tried by the ACT Supreme Court. The case was derailed by juror misconduct. He has always maintained his innocence.
Steven Whybrow, Mr Lehrmann’s defence barrister, was called to give evidence to the inquiry on Monday.
He pointed to a moment during the criminal trial when Mr Drumgold dramatically accused Senator Reynolds, who was a witness for the prosecution, of ‘coaching’ Mr Whybrow by texting him during Ms Higgins’ cross examination.
Steven Whybrow (pictured right), Bruce Lehrmann’s defence barrister, was called to give evidence to the Board of Inquiry
The inquiry is examining the actions of Shane Drumgold, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions and police during the investigation of the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins (pictured above) in October last year
Mr Drumgold also accused the senator of planting her boyfriend in the back of the court, before she was called to give evidence, so he could tell her what was going on.
Senator Reynolds categorically rejected those assertions in court.
On Monday, Mr Whybrow told the inquiry he was angry because, in his view, Mr Drumgold had no basis to make those claims.
‘[Mr Drumgold] put these positive things to Linda Reynolds, to and including, that she was trying to tell me how to do my job, give me cross examination tips’ Mr Whybrow said.
‘I was angry and p*ssed off. I wrote this email to him that I considered [this] was improper conduct. I’m very concerned that you put it as a positive attestation.
‘He didn’t say “were you giving cross-examination tips”. He said, “you were giving … tips” and there’s a significant difference.’
Mr Whybrow pointed out that Ms Higgins had a range of people sitting in the court listening to the trial before she finished giving her evidence.
He also said the prosecution did not ‘own’ Senator Reynolds as a witness, and she was entitled to speak with prosecutors and defence.
Mr Whybrow said it was ‘unfair for Mr Drumgold to suggest he was being coached’, and said it played into the prosecutor’s former view that there was a conspiracy to drop the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann.
‘They were unfair and untrue, and from the perspective of the defence played on this so-called play on conspiracy cover up that Brittany couldn’t complain, he put all these positive things to Ms Reynolds,’ Mr Whybrow said.
‘I was p*ssed off and I was angry.’
SEnator Linda Reynolds has defended texting Mr Whybrow during the trial
Ms Reynolds – who had recently returned from a trip to Rwanda – was called as a witness for the prosecution, but she admitted to texting the defence lawyer during Ms Higgins’ cross-examination in October.
When Mr Drumgold asked why she thought it was appropriate to text the defence, Ms Reynolds said she was ‘curious to know what had been said’, but noted that her lawyer then advised her it was ‘not appropriate’.
The former defence minister also told the court she thought a message exchange between Ms Higgins and an earlier witness Nicole Hamar might ‘shed some light’ on the allegations.
Mr Drumgold then accused her of ‘attempting to coach the cross-examination’, and asked what her motive was.
Read Related Also: Italian foreign minister calls off Paris visit over ‘insults’ from France | Italy
Ms Reynolds responded: ‘That’s not what I was attempting to do.’
The prosecutor put to her: ‘You’re alerting the defence lawyer two hours into cross-examination. You’re injecting yourself by trying to assist in cross-examination.’
The former defence minister said: ‘I haven’t been through his process before.
‘Going through this mentally, I’ve done nothing but – for the last 18 months – go through all of this … It seemed appropriate.
Mr Drumgold said: ‘You are in Rwanda, you are in a conference and you are texting defence lawyer, giving him ideas on what he might cross-examine about. You’ve not got better things to do in Rwanda?’
Ms Reynolds replied: ‘Well, as a witness in this case … absolutely I was interested in the case.’
When asked whether her partner had been sitting at the back of the courtroom during Ms Higgins’ evidence, Ms Reynolds agreed.
Mr Drumgold (above) dramatically accused Senator Reynolds, who was a witness for the prosecution, of ‘coaching’ Mr Whybrow
However, she told the court he had not been reporting back to her.
‘My lawyer was very clear with him not to discuss it with me,’ she said.
Mr Whybrow also told the inquiry on Monday that he had concerns over Mr Drumgold’s media announcement on December 2, when he dropped the charge against Mr Lehrmann over concerns about Ms Higgins’ mental health.
During his speech, which the prosecutor told the inquiry last week was ‘burned into his memory’, he made subjective comments about Ms Higgins’ situation – saying she dealt with the situation with ‘grace’ and asking the media to leave her alone.
However, Mr Whybrow told the inquiry Mr Drumgold he did not extend that same consideration to Mr Lehrmann.
‘He’s supposed to be an objective minister of justice and he could arguably have said “no doubt this has had a significant impact on Mr Lehrmann whose had his life turned upside-down”.’
Further, the decision not to proceed with a second trial was made on December 1 – the day before the media announcement.
Chief Justice Lucy McCallum put an embargo on that information to ensure Ms Higgins’ was well supported at the time of announcement.
The same consideration was not extended to Mr Lehrmann, and his legal team were unsure as to whether they were allowed to tell him prior to the announcement.
Mr Whybrow also pointed to the fact that Ms Higgins was supported in court every day by Heidi Yates, the Victims of Crime Commissioner.
He said that in of itself was not an issue, but complainants in sexual assault cases are normally anonymous in the ACT.
Ms Higgins chose to be identified, which meant she was continually being associated with Ms Yates – who supports alleged victims of crime.
‘I don’t have an issue with that sort of support, but it only served in this case to already make a very difficult situation when he was already convicted in public, with the Logies, into court every day with someone who supports victims,’ he told the inquiry.
‘In this case, it elevated her status to someone who as actually a victim of crime and we’re just going through the process.’
The inquiry continues.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Dailymail.co.uk
