The chief prosecutor in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann said it was not improper for him to raise the possibility of a political conspiracy but concedes he should have been clearer that he no longer held those views in relation to the case.
The ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, is the first witness at an independent inquiry investigating the prosecution of Lehrmann, who was accused of sexually assaulting Brittany Higgins.
Drumgold said on Wednesday while giving evidence that at the time he wrote an explosive letter to the ACT chief police officer in November 2022, he felt it was “possible, if not probable” that a conspiracy existed.
He said he was struggling to understand multiple unusual “strands” in the case and wondered whether a possible explanation was that pressure was being applied from senators Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash on to the AFP commissioner, Reece Kershaw, and in turn on to the officers investigating the case.
On Friday, Drumgold rejected suggestions from Kate Richardson SC, for the AFP, that it was improper for him to make “the gravest allegation” against Kershaw, which she said would have amounted to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
He said he was making no such allegation and was simply answering questions from counsel assisting Erin Longbottom KC regarding his mindset at the time of writing the letter.
Drumgold said on Thursday that, after reading the statements to the inquiry submitted by several police who investigated the case, he now thought a “skills deficit” on behalf of the officers explained what had happened during the investigation.
Walter Sofronoff KC, who is chairing the inquiry, put to Drumgold that “the trouble is that you had the opportunity … to make good the position from 10 o’clock on Monday onwards until your counsel reexamined you yesterday”.
“I agree with that,” Drumgold responded, later saying that he “should have injected the addendum” that he no longer believed in a possible conspiracy.
Drumgold was also questioned at length on Friday about his meeting with television personality Lisa Wilkinson before she made a Logies acceptance speech and gave a radio interview that resulted in a stay of Lehrmann’s trial.
He said he did not believe he misled the court during the stay application.
But he accepted he should have corrected the record about the fact a note of the meeting with Wilkinson had not all been taken contemporaneously, and had in part been authored by him, and not a more junior member of his office.
Drumgold rejected a suggestion by Sue Chrysanthou SC, for Wilkinson, that he had added the information to the file note of the meeting after learning of the Logies speech to justify his “failing” to warn her against giving the speech.
He said he had clearly warned Wilkinson any publicity could result in a stay.
“A senior journalist sitting next to a media lawyer could not arrive at any … conclusion other than I should not give a speech.
“That advice was abundantly clear that that speech should not have been made.”
The inquiry continues on Monday, with Steve Whybrow SC, Lehrmann’s barrister, expected to give evidence.
