Brittany Higgins: Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister says ex-Liberal staffer’s rape claim is ‘untenable’

The barrister for Bruce Lehrmann has told a jury the prosecution case that his client raped Brittany Higgins is “untenable” and claimed the young woman “doesn’t know what happened” to her in Parliament House.

Lehrmann, 27, pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins, without her consent and being reckless to her consent, in the Parliament House office of their boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, in the early hours of March 23, 2019.

Prosecutor Shane Drumgold SC told the jury on Tuesday morning that the “essence” of the case was whether they believed Ms Higgins would have fabricated a rape claim to save her dream job in Senator Reynolds’ office.

“If she did, it was elaborate … She has done so for over three years. She did not falter,” he said.

“We submit not a single inconsistency in what she said has been revealed.

“If this is a fabrication. She appears to be quite the actor.”

Mr Drumgold said that included lying to her own mother, noting that the court had heard evidence from Kelly Higgins that her daughter had become “unfamiliar” to her after the incident.

Lehrmann’s barrister, Steve Whybrow, told the jury “the kindest way” of summing up the case is that “Ms Higgins doesn’t know what happened”.

He took the jury to Ms Higgins’ interview with police where she said she had “pieced together” her memories over the night.

“She talks about what the guard saw, what somebody was thinking, what somebody else did and why they did it - because she has reconstructed and, in my submission to you, you could not be satisfied she knows what happened.”

The Crown submitted to the court that Mr Lehrmann had lied about why he needed to return to Parliament House in the early hours of 23 March 2019.

“(It was) the most convenient place to get the then very drunk and vulnerable complainant alone … possibly with the hope that she would either not resist or not remember,” Mr Drumgold said.

“Ask yourself on the back of the complainant’s huge night and clear intoxication … that the accused would firstly take her to Parliament House because she supposedly had some work to do, then left,” he said.

“Leaving her there and apparently turning the lights out as he left.”

He said that the accused had known Ms Higgins for 20 days before the alleged rape and had no reason to infer “romantic inclinations” between the two, pointing to Ms Higgins rejecting an attempt to kiss her in the weeks before the incident.

Earlier, the Crown prosecutor said the former Liberal staffer had “a right to be scared” by the “strong political forces” while deciding whether to proceed with a complaint of rape.

“This is a young lady in the middle of strong political forces, and we say she was right to be scared,” he said.

“She was right to be cautious and we say she was right to move slowly and carefully in handing her life over to the police.”

Mr Whybrow told the jury the case against his client was “untenable” when they looked at Ms Higgins’ evidence.

“Where is the evidence that justifies (Ms Higgins) had a right to be scared and there were political forces at play?” he asked the jury.

The barrister said both the politicians who employed Ms Higgins in 2019, Senators Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash, denied Ms Higgins’ job was under threat.

“They have denied it, have you heard from anyone there were political forces at play aside from Ms Higgins?” the barrister said.

Mr Whybrow told the court they were here for due process, for the presumption of innocence.

“The case is not about whether (Ms Higgins) made it up, or whether I have convinced you that she has made a false complaint, or fabricated a picture, or told lies… I have no onus, Mr Lehrmann has no onus to prove anything,” he said.

Mr Drumgold warned the jury against being distracted by “side issues and red herrings” about book deals and political parties.

“This case is not about political movements, not about political parties, and not about workplace culture,” he told the court.

“This case is certainly not about the experiences of other women in parliament or the MeToo movement.

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

The jury will retire to consider their verdict after both parties complete their closing addresses and Chief Justice Lucy McCallum completes summing up the case - which is expected later this week.