Mr Drumgold alleged there was a political conspiracy to have Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations discredited.

Mr Lehrmann has continued to deny the allegations.

On his first day of evidence before an inquiry examining this trial, Mr Lehrmann’s then-barrister, Steven Whybrow SC, said he learnt of this for the first time in the media about a month later.

“There was a whole lot of aspects to this letter that were alarming when I found out about it in December,” Mr Whybrow said.

He said one of the more alarming parts was Mr Drumgold’s direction that in the event of a retrial, police should not be allowed into the courtroom or to have any contact with the defence team.

Mr Whybrow said if this retrial did happen, he would have gone into the courtroom “totally ignorant to the fact that police have been ordered not to engage with me”.

“If I had ordered a defendant’s family not to speak to police and that came to the attention of the DPP, I would suspect I would be in serious trouble for doing so,” Mr Whybrow told the inquiry.

VIEW ALL

Another allegation Mr Drumgold made during the course of the trial was that Senator Linda Reynolds had coached the defence team.

Mr Drumgold said the senator did this by sending a text message to Mr Whybrow suggesting he look at messages between Ms Higgins and a colleague she worked with at the time of the alleged rape.

“I disagree with that entirely,” Mr Whybrow said.

“From my perspective, it was appalling mischaracterisation of what has occurred. That’s a pretty serious allegation of what she was doing and why she was doing it.”

Mr Drumgold also alleged Ms Reynolds had her husband sit in the courtroom during Ms Higgins’ cross-examination for her own benefit.

“(Mr Drumgold) raised with me some grave concerns that Senator Reynolds’ husband was at the back of the court,” Mr Whybrow said.

“That confused me considering at the back of the court … were a whole lot of other people from, if you’d like, (Higgins) camp.

“I couldn’t understand why Linda Reynolds’ husband sitting at the back of the court might cause a problem, compared to other people.”

During Mr Drumgold’s examination of Ms Reynolds, he accused her of working with the defence team “in the positive assertion”, meaning there was an imputation in his questions that he had information to suggest that this was true.

Mr Whybrow said this was without “evidentiary basis”.

“I don’t hold a candle to Ms Reynolds, but they were unfair and, as far as I was aware, untrue and played on this political conspiracy,” he said.

Following this exchange in court, Mr Whybrow said he sent an email to Mr Drumgold that he was “gravely concerned” with the allegations.

“I was pissed off,” Mr Whybrow told the inquiry.

“I was angry, and I wrote this email to him about what I considered was improper conduct.”

Mr Whybrow said Mr Drumgold never responded to this email.

Mr Whybrow also told the inquiry this was not a case where he thought police were trying to undermine the investigation or the prosecution, as alleged by Mr Drumgold.

Whybrow ‘flabbergasted’ with DPP’s disclosure

Mr Whybrow said he began taking contemporaneous notes during the October trial after he learnt Mr Drumgold had read Ms Higgins’ counselling notes that were included in a brief of evidence.

The counselling notes were redacted due to a statute that protects complainants but could be unlocked, which Mr Whybrow had assumed was a human error and not an intentional leak.

Mr Whybrow said he did not read them and sent the brief back unread when this was brought to his attention.

However, Mr Drumgold did read them.

“Frankly, I was flabbergasted to be told this information that the DPP had to take the view that (him or his team) were entitled to read these to see if they were disclosable,” Mr Whybrow said.

Mr Whybrow said he initially broached the conversation because he wanted to “put to bed” the allegations that police were leaking documents to the media and public on purpose.

“I was not expecting to be told that the DPP had read these, and he had read them to the extent (to learn) that they are disclosable.

“And now we’re in a position where prosecution had all the material, and we didn’t and couldn’t, and I was very concerned. That’s why I wrote all of this straight down.

“It’s not an even playing field,” Mr Whybrow said.