The prohibited research paper that led to the abandonment of Bruce Lehrmann's trial was never discussed by the jury, a transcript of closed proceedings has revealed.
The transcript was released to the ACT board of inquiry, which is currently examining how the case against Mr Lehrmann, for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins at Parliament House, was handled by criminal justice agencies.
Last year, the jury in the trial was discharged after it was revealed a juror had brought material into the jury room that had not been provided as evidence during the trial.
Mr Lehrmann has maintained his innocence and there have been no findings against him after the trial was abandoned.
According to the court transcript, when the relevant juror was quizzed about the document by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, they said they wanted to clarify a point for themselves and no other juror had seen it.
"I brought it in to show where the clarification came from and we agreed that … because it was research it shouldn't be discussed, and I didn't," they said.
"We have not discussed it."
The court transcript revealed that Justice McCallum told the juror that while she accepted that the document may not have formed part of the deliberations, it was a risk she was unable to take.
"The fact that you had access to material that was not part of the evidence, and that it has been in the jury room, means that I will have to discharge you," she said.
The juror apologised for their actions, and said they were not aware it was "in any sense a wrongdoing."
During the trial, Justice McCallum had given at least 17 warnings to the jury not to do their own research.
Defence barrister says prosecutor was hostile to police, not other way around
Today, former barrister for Bruce Lehrmann, Steve Whybrow, told the ACT board of inquiry he disagreed with the chief prosecutor's view that police were hostile toward efforts to prosecute Mr Lehrmann.
Mr Whybrow was today quizzed about his perception of the relationship between police and the prosecution.
In the letter to the ACT's Chief Police Officer which sparked the inquiry, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold said he had felt pressure from police not to indict Mr Lehrmann.
Under questioning from Mr Drumgold's counsel, Mark Tedeschi KC, Mr Whybrow told the inquiry he disagreed that police were resentful of the prosecution's efforts.
"I don't mean that they were loving and kind," he said.
"[But] my impression was that it was Mr Drumgold who was hostile towards the police."
But Mr Whybrow did single out one officer, Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman, who he said was "unhappy with various aspects of the trial".
In his statement to the inquiry released last week, Mr Whybrow revealed Detective Inspector Boorman told him he thought Mr Lehrmann was innocent, and if he were found guilty he would resign.
Defence relationship with police scrutinised
The inquiry has also probed Mr Whybrow's relationship with police, including his efforts to get access to documents the DPP had refused to disclose.
It earlier heard Mr Whybrow phoned Detective Superintendent Scott Moller in the weeks before the trial and asked him whether he agreed with the DPP's view that the documents were privileged.
Mr Moller had prepared at least one of the investigative review documents which was being withheld from the defence.
"I wasn't satisfied with what information we'd been given by the DPP," Mr Whybrow told the inquiry.
"I just took it upon myself to go straight to the horse's mouth."
Mr Whybrow said he saw nothing improper about asking questions of an officer directly.
"It's a fundamental proposition of litigation that nobody owns a witness," he said.
"Every time I speak to a witness … I say you don't have to talk to me."
DPP's lawyer defends media statement
During his testimony yesterday, Mr Whybrow reflected on Mr Drumgold's comments to the media when he announced the abandonment of the re-trial, and said he thought they were an overreach.
Mr Drumgold said his view about the reasonable prospect of convicting Mr Lehrmann had not changed, but there would be no re-trial out of concern for Ms Higgins's health and welfare.
Today, Mr Tedeschi put to Mr Whybrow there was nothing inappropriate about the DPP's comments.
"The community was entitled to know that the decision was not based on some view of the evidence in the trial," Mr Tedeschi said.
"It was based entirely upon personal issues relating to the complainant."
Mr Whybrow rejected that proposition.
"At that point it was moot," he said.
Mr Whybrow's statement to the inquiry has also revealed a brief SMS exchange between he and Mr Drumgold after the matter had been discontinued.
Mr Drumgold initiated the discussion on December 5.
"Hi Steve – a practice I have adopted in recent years after particularly hard fought and stressful matters, is to grab lunch with opposing counsel when the dust settles. I would like to extend that to you following Lehrmann when you are free."
Mr Whybrow sent a brief response the following day.
"Hi Shane
Let's revisit in the new year maybe."
Mr Whybrow's testimony has now concluded, and the inquiry has been adjourned for the rest of the week.
It will resume publicly next Monday.
