Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury intoduces changes to Evidence Act ahead of Bruce Lehrmann retrial

The changes could affect the retrial of Bruce Lehrmann, who is accused of raping Brittany Higgins.

But the ACT government has said the changes are about fixing an anomaly in the Evidence Act and to help protect vulnerable witnesses so they are not "unnecessarily retraumatised".

Under current ACT laws, complainants in sexual violence and family violence matters can give their evidence from a remote witness room. This evidence is recorded and can be used again in the event of a retrial.

However, a complainant can choose to give their evidence in-person in the courtroom but if this is recorded it cannot be used again in the event of a retrial.

Ms Higgins gave her evidence in-person. It is understood her evidence was recorded.

Mr Rattenbury introduced the proposed legislation in the Assembly on Thursday morning.

Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee sought to refer the bill to a committee inquiry which would report back in March next year. The Lehrmann retrial is scheduled for February 20, 2023.

The government rejected this, instead, the standing committee on Justice and Community Safety was given an extra week to consider the report, meaning it could still pass in the first sitting week of February.

The proposed change was prompted following a letter by the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold to Mr Rattenbury in a letter on October 31, saying the anomaly required an "urgent amendment".

The letter was sent just three days after Lehrmann's trial was aborted, following the declaration of a mistrial brought about by the misconduct of a juror.

MORE A.C.T. POLITICS NEWS:

However, The Canberra Times understands Mr Drumgold was not aware Ms Higgins' evidence was recorded until November 16.

The issue has been raised in another case which is ongoing. Mr Drumgold told Mr Rattenbury the issue could impact four trials.

In introducing the bill, Mr Rattenbury said the use of the recording of the evidence would not be mandatory and the court would have discretion to refuse any part of the recording in evidence.

"Being able to provide evidence remotely reduces unnecessary contact between a witness and an accused person and recording the evidence means they will not have to repeat that evidence unnecessarily," he said.

"Importantly, the provisions do not diminish the rights of the accused person to cross-examine the witness - a fundamental right in any fair justice system.

"The recording of any evidence would include the cross-examination at the time.

"The provisions also importantly allow for all or part of the recording to be excluded, and for further questions to be asked, where it is necessary and appropriate to do so."

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: