Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer requests independent IT expert as rape case stalled
Lawyers acting for former political staffer Bruce Lehrmann in his rape case have demanded that their “independent computer forensic expert” examine the complainant’s phone while the matter continues to be resolved in court.
The matter was due to be listed for a permanent stay of proceedings application in Toowoomba but was adjourned to Ipswich last month because Mr Lehrmann’s legal team was not prepared to proceed.
On Monday, Ipswich District Court was told material relating to the defense case was still pending.
Mr Lehrmann faces two rape charges stemming from an alleged incident in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in 2021.
He denies the allegations and disputes the charges.
Lawyer Zali Burrows, representing Mr Lehrmann, told the court there were still unresolved issues with some of the material, including two reports and extracts completed on the complainant’s phone via the Cellebrite tool.
Ms Burrows said the initial extraction and report had been “destroyed” because it was lost on a “faulty” hard drive.
He explained that some “keywords” were missing from the second Cellebrite report.
Ms Burrows said a separate application to correct the report was still before District Court Judge Craig Chowdhury.
“This issue has not yet been determined because it turned out to be an unredacted version of the Crown copy of the second Cellebrite report,” he explained.
Ms Burrows said this could not be achieved due to “encryption” issues or the data being “corrupt”.
“We are of the view that this is highly relevant to our application for stay,” he continued.
Ms Burrows told the court she also wanted to seek a fresh extraction from the complainant’s phone in police custody and an “independent computer forensics expert” to carry out a Cellebrite report.
Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco said another copy of the material from the complainant’s phone would be available later in the day.
He said the delay was due to the investigating officer being on leave.
Ms Marco added that the order regarding the independent IT expert “will be resisted”.
Judge Dennis Lynch KC said: “It seems to me to be premature in any case because there’s a lot of grounding about what’s been taken down.”
“I think we should wait for the outcome of this.”
Another mention was listed for November 17.
“In the meantime… I will not even put the matter on the adjournment application for hearing until all the material has been presented,” Judge Lynch said.
Police allege Mr Lehrmann twice raped a woman during a night out in Toowoomba in October 2021.
During a hearing in June last year, the court was told the woman met Mr Lehrmann at a strip club known as The Vault while out for the night with friends.
It will be alleged in court that Mr Lehrmann told the woman his name was “Bryce”, then explained that his name was “Bruce”.
After leaving the club, the couple allegedly had consensual sex and consumed more cocaine.
Police allege that Mr. Lehrmann had sex with the woman twice on the night in question without her consent.
Mr Burrows argued phone calls between his client’s former lawyers and Queensland Police in July were “illegal”, while the defense had been asking for the trial to be permanently postponed in court for months.
He claimed this amounted to a “tactical advantage.”
During a search in the Brisbane District Court the same month, Ms Burrows told the court that a hard drive containing records of witnesses and Mr Lehrmann, all evidence, copies of witness statements, video and digital recordings and a full downloaded version of the complainant’s phone had been destroyed because it was “defective”.
Ms Burrows said she was told the hard drive had been destroyed before “independent experts could access it”.
In August, Mr Lehrmann’s legal team unsuccessfully bid to seek material subpoenaed from the Queensland Police Commissioner.
Michael Bonasia, acting for the commissioner, said the privileged material had already been submitted to the court and sealed in an envelope.
In his ruling, Judge Chowdhury said the summary sought by Ms Burrows was “part” of legal advice and was therefore within the scope of legal professional privilege.
