Brittany Higgins: Jury in deadlock in trial of accused rapist Bruce Lehrmann

The jury in the rape trial of Brittany Higgins’ accused attacker Bruce Lehrmann has written the judge a note saying they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

The group of eight women and four men have deliberated for five days in the ACT Supreme Court to determine whether Mr Lehrmann was guilty of sexual intercourse without consent and being reckless to her consent.

About midday WA time on Tuesday, jurors sent Chief Justice Lucy McCallum a note saying that they were “unable to agree” on a unanimous verdict.

Justice McCallum asked the jury to retire again to see if they could get to a verdict.

“I have the power to discharge you but I should only do so if satisfied after examining one or more of you that you are not likely to agree,” she said.

“Experience has shown juries often are able to agree in the end if they are given more time to consider the evidence.”

The jury has since finished deliberating for the day, asking the court to let them go home and “return with fresh minds” on Wednesday.

Justice McCallum thanked them for their continuing hard work in the trial and asked them to try to relax on Tuesday afternoon by hitting the gym or walking the dog.

“Have a bit of respite from this arduous task that faces you,” she said.

Ms Higgins alleges the ex-Liberal staffer sexually assaulted her in the parliamentary office of then-defence industry minister Linda Reynolds’ office on March 23, 2019, after a drunken night out in Canberra.

Mr Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In his closing argument, Prosecutor Shane Drumgold urged the jury to disregard discussions of political movements and workplace cultures sparked by the case.

He said the case was not about the culture inside Parliament House or the Me Too movement but about what happened on a couch inside a minister’s office in the early hours of March 23, 2019.

Mr Drumgold said Ms Higgins had been a credible and honest witness whose version of events that night had not wavered.

Meanwhile, he said Mr Lehrmann had given inconsistent accounts about why he was at parliament on the night of the alleged assault to the security guards, to his boss and to the police.

The prosecutor suggested Mr Lehrmann’s intent was to go to Parliament House so he could be alone with the “drunk” and “vulnerable” Ms Higgins.

Mr Lehrmann’s defence lawyer Steven Whybrow told the court nothing happened that night and suggested Ms Higgins had fabricated her account to save her job.

He said a closer look at her evidence made the prosecution’s case against his client “totally untenable”.

Mr Whybrow pointed to inconsistencies in Ms Higgins’ story, including that she had told police and others she had attended doctor appointments after the alleged assault.

He suggested Ms Higgins fabricated doctor appointments at the time to “make it more believable” that she had been sexually assaulted.

1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)

Lifeline 13 11 14