Bruce Lehrmann's defence barrister has rejected suggestions he colluded with Senator Linda Reynolds during Mr Lehrmann's trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.
An ACT board of inquiry has on Monday resumed its examination of how the case against Mr Lehrmann was handled by the relevant criminal justice agencies.
Mr Lehrmann was accused of raping Ms Higgins in a parliamentary office in 2019, though his trial was abandoned late last year.
He maintains his innocence and there have been no findings against him.
In a letter to the ACT's chief police officer, which sparked the inquiry, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold alleged Senator Reynolds had sought transcripts of the trial from the defence to tailor her own evidence, and was coaching the defence in its cross-examination.
Mr Lehrmann's barrister, Steve Whybrow, on Monday told the inquiry that he was angered by the claims.
"It was an appalling mischaracterisation of what had occurred," Mr Whybrow said.
"I don't hold a candle for Senator Reynolds, but they were unfair, and as far as I was aware, untrue."
Senator Reynolds had sought the transcripts in text messages to Mr Whybrow, in an exchange where she also alerted the defence to a possible line of inquiry.
"If you have text messages between Brittany and Nicky, they may be revealing," she wrote.
Mr Whybrow told the inquiry he had gone above his disclosure obligations to show the text messages to the prosecution.
"I showed those to Shane for the purpose of allaying any fears," he said.
Angry email to the prosecution
The inquiry has heard Mr Whybrow was "pissed off" and "angry" with the DPP's claims, and raised concerns to him in an email on October 17, midway through the trial.
"I am gravely concerned at this late stage about the fairness of this trial by a suggestion which is clearly being reported as some sort of improper contact between a witness and myself," he wrote.
"If you are actually alleging either myself or Senator Reynolds engaged in some impropriety could you please make that clear (before court tomorrow if you would do me that courtesy)."
Mr Whybrow said he objected to Mr Drumgold making assertions in court which assumed the truth of his claims, rather than asking open-ended questions.
"I wrote this email to him about what I considered was improper conduct," he said.
Implication of guilt
Mr Whybrow also took issue with Mr Drumgold's comments to the media on the day he announced there would not be a retrial due to concerns for Ms Higgins's health.
At the time, Mr Drumgold said he had not changed his view that there were reasonable prospects of convicting Mr Lehrmann.
"He did not need to say that," Mr Whybrow told the inquiry.
"It conveyed that [Mr Lehrmann] was really guilty in his view."
Mr Drumgold also said that Ms Higgins had "faced a level of personal attack" he had not seen throughout his career, and had done so "with bravery, grace and dignity".
Mr Whybrow said that comment was an overreach.
"The DPP is not the solicitor for the complainant, he's supposed to be the objective minister of justice," he said.
Whybrow praised officer's 'cross-examination' of Ms Higgins
Mr Whybrow was also asked about an exchange with Senior Constable Emma Frizzell from ACT Policing on September 29 last year, the week before the trial began.
In that conversation, the inquiry heard Mr Whybrow commented on the quality of the second evidence-in-chief interview (EICI) with Ms Higgins.
"I have to say, you did a better job in that second interview of cross-examining Ms Higgins than I ever could," he said.
On Monday, under questioning from the DPP's counsel, Mark Tedeschi KC, Mr Whybrow said he did not use the term "cross-examination" in the literal sense.
"The effect of that second interview I considered was devastating to the credibility of the complainant," he said.
He agreed with Mr Tedeschi that it was "not the job of police to cross-examine a complainant in an EICI".
Mr Whybrow's testimony is expected to continue on Tuesday.
