Bruce Lehrmann, accused of raping former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in a federal minister’s office, has pleaded not guilty.
Chief Justice Lucy McCallum says those with an interest in the case risk being held in contempt of court by prejudicing a trial ahead of the jury hearing the matter in June.
“The court strongly urges anyone with an interest in these proceedings to bear those matters in mind and to be careful about the words they publish between now and the 6th of June,” she told the ACT Supreme Court on Thursday.
“To put it in blunt terms, the more people keep talking about this case the greater the risk the prosecution will be stayed.”
Chief Justice McCallum noted the offence could only be tried by a jury.
Appearing on behalf of Lehrmann, barrister John Korn raised concerns speeches made during the course of a campaign Higgins is involved in had the potential to prejudice the case.
But the barrister admitted he did not know whether a stay application would be sought, telling the court he was due to represent Lehrmann at trial but that another legal team would be handling the pre-trial matters.
Mr Korn said the chances of a halt to proceedings “getting off the ground” were tenuous, adding “I believe the chances of a stay application being made are slim to none”.
Chief Justice McCallum chastised the legal counsel of Higgins’ alleged rapist for not knowing whether a stay application would be made by the accused.
“It’s not a very satisfactory state of affairs to not have a definitive answer less than three months … from when the court has set aside six weeks (for trial).
“We need to know and we need to know urgently whether there is going to be a stay application.”
Legal concerns Lehrmann would not be able to receive a fair trial due to the publicity surrounding the case were flagged at a previous court hearing in February.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison issued an apology to Higgins and other victims of sexual harassment in Parliament House on February 8 but the prime minister’s office later clarified the comments were not a reflection on matters before the court.Jump to next article