Prosecution and defence lawyers on Tuesday gave closing submissions in the case of Bruce Lehrmann, the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in 2019.
Mr Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual intercourse without consent.
In his final submissions to the court on Tuesday afternoon, Mr Lehrmann's lawyer Steven Whybrow told the court the case rested upon the fact that Ms Higgins did not know what happened after she entered Parliament House with Mr Lehrmann.
"In the kindest way to Ms Higgins, without findings of deceit or dishonesty or secondary gain or personal interest ... just say 'she doesn't know'," he told the jury.
"She doesn't know what happened. We can't be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she knows what happened."
Mr Whybrow reminded the jury that the defence maintains sexual intercourse never took place between the pair.
"Our contention is that it didn't. There was no sex. It didn't happen," he said.
He reminded the jury it was up to the prosecution to prove that the alleged rape happened "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The defence lawyer also argued that Ms Higgins said things in her evidence that were "totally and utterly inconsistent", describing her as "unreliable".
Case 'not about political movements': prosecution
Earlier in the day, Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold told the jury there were five key things for them to consider when making their decision.
He said they should ask whether Mr Lehrmann was attracted to Ms Higgins, why he entered Parliament House, whether Mr Lehrmann did engage in sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins, whether she could consent and finally whether Mr Lehrmann was reckless about whether Ms Higgins had consented or not.
He reminded the jury the case was not about politics but about what happened in the early hours of a night in March inside a parliamentary suite.
"This case is not about political movements, it's not about political parties and it's not about workplace cultures — certainly not about other experiences in Parliament or [the] 'Me Too' movement."
"This case is about what happened on a couch in a room on Saturday the 23rd of March 2019," he said.
Mr Drumgold told the jury that political influences on Ms Higgins's decision to pursue a police complaint were clear.
"This is a young lady in the middle of strong political forces and we say she was right to be scared," he said.
Inconsistent evidence argued on both sides
Mr Drumgold also told the jury Ms Higgins's version of events was credible and noted that she told nine different people about the alleged rape over a period of 16 days in 2019.
"When she says something occurred, we submit you can with confidence believe what she's saying," he told the jury.
But Mr Whybrow disagreed with Mr Drumgold about Ms Higgins's reliability.
In closing, he said Ms Higgins's version of events contained multiple inconsistencies.
"She says things that are not consistent with, that do not match with the record of interview," he said.
Mr Whybrow told the jury Ms Higgins told the police she was going to the doctor to make it more believable that she had been sexually assaulted.
He suggested the inconsistencies in her recollection of events were "talking points she's sprouting".
He also pointed to when Ms Higgins told police she had kept the dress she wore on the night of the alleged assault under her bed, uncleaned and pointed out Ms Higgins had worn the dress just a few weeks later.
"Of all the people in the world that she's going to wear that dress to symbolically wash it and wear it, is it Linda Reynolds's birthday party? Is it five days after she last tells the police it's in a bag under my bed?" he asked the jury.
He also told the jury it was an agreed fact that a cleaner had been called in to clean the office of Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds on the afternoon following the alleged assault because Ms Higgins had been found sleeping naked there by security, and not because of an alleged rape, as no allegation had yet been raised.
"She's somebody who is unreliable. Who says things to suit her. That's the dress. That's the GP," Mr Whybrow said of Ms Higgins.
Mr Whybrow once again suggested Ms Higgins created the story to protect her employment, but in his closing arguments Mr Drumgold asked the jury to question why she would have ultimately quit her job to pursue the police complaint.
"There is not one piece of evidence to suggest her job was remotely at risk," he said.
Mr Drumgold told the jury Mr Lehrmann had given multiple reasons for going to Parliament House in the early hours of March 23, 2019.
He said Mr Lehrmann told security at the entrance to Parliament House he was coming to collect documents and he was there for official work purposes, told police he was returning to the building to collect his keys and had stopped to look over some documents, and told his chief of staff he was in the building to drink whiskey.
Mr Drumgold asserted that Mr Lehrmann took Ms Higgins to Parliament House that evening "to get the drunk and vulnerable complainant alone in a room".
"It was the middle of the night and we say this was the most convenient place to get her alone," he said.
"Not a sudden need to do some work in the middle of the night."
However, Mr Whybrow again played the jury the CCTV video of the two entering Parliament House in March 2019 and pointed out that when going through the metal detector, Mr Lehrmann did not pick up any keys, so may well have been returning to Parliament House to collect them.
He added that when entering Parliament House with Mr Lehrmann, Ms Higgins was "not falling around drunk" in the video.
Twenty-nine witnesses were called to give evidence throughout the trial.
The prosecution has finished its closing arguments, while the defence is set to continue giving its final submissions on Wednesday.
