[ad_1]
A prosecutor has told a jury they have five key questions to consider during his closing argument in the trial of the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins.
Crown prosecutor Shane Drumgold delivered his closing statements in the ACT Supreme Court trial of ex-Liberal party staffer Bruce Lehrmann on Tuesday morning.
Mr Drumgold told the jury Lehrmann took Ms Higgins back to Parliament House on the night he allegedly raped her because ‘it was the most convenient place to get her drunk and confused’.
He suggested that was the answer to one of the key questions the jury had to consider – why Lehrmann and Ms Higgins went to parliament house?
He said the jury also must consider whether they believed Lehrmann and Ms Higgins had sex – and whether it was consensual – as well as whether he was attracted to the alleged victim and if he was ‘reckless’ regarding her consent.
Ms Higgins, also a former Liberal staffer, claims Lehrmann raped her in the parliamentary office of ex-defence minister Linda Reynolds in the early hours of March 23, 2019, after a night out in Canberra.
He has pleaded not guilty to a single charge of sexual intercourse without consent.
Mr Drumgold began his closing statements by telling the jury the case was not about ‘political movements, political parties and it’s not about workplace cultures’.
Brittany Higgins (pictured) claims her former colleague Bruce Lehrmann raped her in the parliamentary office of former defence minister Linda Reynolds in March 2019.
Former attorney-general Michaelia Cash (pictured with Ms Higgins) gave evidence in the trial
‘[The case is not about] whether young people, whatever gender, have the right to drink what they choose or to be safe. Or whether Ms Higgins likes Linda Reynolds, or about whether parliament house responded adequately,’ he said.
‘This case is certainly not about the experience of other women in parliament or the “me too” movement, media interviews or book deals.’
Mr Drumgold said the case was about ‘what happened on a couch in a room’ on March 23, 2019 – between when Ms Higgins and Lehrmann entered parliament at 1.48am and when the accused left alone at 2.31am.
He told the jury Lehrmann gave various reasons for going back to Parliament House on the night of the alleged rape, but said he rejected all reasons – ‘except possibly to drink alcohol and get the drunk and vulnerable complainant alone in a room’.
‘It was the most convenient place to get her drunk and confused… in the hope she would not resist and not remember,’ he said.
Mr Drumgold questioned why Lehrmann would have left his keys, documents and security pass at work before going out to drinks on a Friday night, knowing he would only have to go back and get them late at night.
‘Lehrmann said he had to go to parliament house to get his keys which, in his words, was “normal practice”. He added he would just leave them on his desk so wouldn’t have a lot of things in his pockets,’ he told the jury.
‘Ask yourself, how would he then grab his keys if he left his pass there? He agreed he didn’t have his pass on him – it would force him to sign in to get his keys just to go home.’
He also questioned why Lehrmann would go back to parliament to put tabs on a Question Time brief when Question Time was not due to take place the following week – ‘why not wait until Monday?’
Crown prosecutor Shane Drumgold began his closing statements by telling the jury the case was not about ‘political movements, political parties and it’s not about workplace cultures’. Rather, he said, it was about what happened in Linda Reynolds office early on March 23, 2019.
The rape was alleged to have occurred in Senator Linda Reynolds’ office in Parliament House
Mr Drumgold said Lehrmann claimed in his record of interview with federal police that there was no alcohol in the office because Ms Reynolds was new in the defence portfolio and it was not yet set up.
However, his former colleague Nicole Hamar told the court last week she worked with Lehrmann in Home Affairs and he had a sizeable amount of alcohol in his office.
The prosecution said it was ‘unlikely he would throw out a substantial amount of alcohol because he moved offices’.
Mr Drumgold also brought up the timing of Lehrmann’s departure from Parliament House – he said the accused left the minister’s suite because he had received a notification that an Uber had arrived.
Bruce Lehrmann is pictured arriving in ACT Supreme Court on Tuesday morning. He has pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting Ms Higgins
However, the prosecutor said, security footage and phone records showed the Uber did not arrive for at least three minutes after he left parliament house.
Mr Drumgold said Lehrmann had missed six phone calls from his girlfriend on the night of the alleged assault, with the accused telling police he missed the calls because his phone is usually on silent.
However, the prosecutor said, Lehrmann had looked at his phone to call the Uber immediately afterwards.
Mr Drumgold told the jury anything Ms Higgins said or did after the alleged assault had no bearing on her credibility, and asked them to ‘stand back’ and look at why Ms Higgins would risk her ‘dream job’ over a fabrication.
‘This is a young lady in the middle of powerful political forces, and we say she was right to be cautious,’ he said.
He suggested to the jury that Ms Higgins was an ‘incredibly’ credible witness.
‘We’ve got a highly intoxicated female waking up in the morning and reconstructing events – she said she wasn’t wearing the dress because he didn’t remember putting it back on,’ he said.
‘I submit Ms Higgins is an incredibly credible witness. When she couldn’t recall something, she said so.
‘When security guard Nikola Anderson called out to her, she said she couldn’t recall that event. When she didn’t know an answer, she said she couldn’t recall.
‘Ms Hggins didn’t seem to embellish her account of rape at all. She said it lasted 2-3 minutes after she woke up in pain.’
He asked the jury to recall Ms Higgins’ reaction when Lehrmann’s defence lawyer Steven Whybrow put to her that there was no sexual assault.
‘She said “He was in my body. He was physically violating me, I know”,’ he said.
Mr Drumgold also asked the jury to consider that Ms Higgins recollection of events may not be accurate because she had been intoxicated and was piecing the night together.
But he suggested that didn’t mean her allegations were not accurate.
‘When recalling two-year-old conversations, you’d be suspicious if every word matched to the letter,’ Mr Drumgold said.
He also referred to discrepancies surrounding a photograph of a bruise on Ms Higgins’ leg – she told the court she believed the bruise was the result of the alleged assault.
However, a digital forensic investigator told the court the image had no metadata, location or time.
‘Brittany only assumed the bruise was sustained during the sex, she’s not saying it definitely did. Indeed it may have been sustained during the fall at (nightclub) 88mph for all we know, but she saw the bruise and drew that conclusion,’ Mr Drumgold told the jury.
‘I ask you this, keep in mind there is no blueprint or text book reaction for a sexual assault victim to behave in the days, weeks and months after.
‘Trauma effects everyone different. There is no typical way – one person would not behave in the same way for subsequent events.’
He said ‘there are strong political aspects to this case’ and referred to Ms Higgins’ former boss Fiona Brown – who was then chief-of-staff for Senator Reynolds – becoming emotional in court over a text she received from Ms Higgins.
‘Fiona Brown was clearly emotionally invested to the point where her emotions got the better of her,’ Mr Drumgold told the jury.
‘Brittany Higgins was one of many low-level staff members. Why would she be so emotionally invested in an SMS thanking her? We don’t know why, but she was clearly emotionally invested that question but not in other questions that she was asked.’
[ad_2]
Source link
