The jury deliberating in the trial of the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins has been told there is no rush or time limit to reach a verdict.
Former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and is facing a criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court.
The jury has been deliberating for close to 20 hours after the prosecution closed its case following a 12-day trial.
On Monday, they requested a "little extra time" to consider their verdict in their first note to the court since entering the jury room.
"We have not yet reached an agreement of beyond reasonable doubt. We ask the court to give us a little extra time to complete our deliberation. Could you please advise on time expectations?" the note said.
Chief Justice Lucy McCallum assured jurors there was no rush and they should take all the time they needed.
She said they should not feel any pressure from people waiting for the verdict.
"There's no rush. There's no time limit," she said.
The chief justice said anyone other than the accused and complainant waiting for a verdict were choosing to do so.
"There's no pressure from anyone on you," she said.
She instructed the jurors to complete their oath to find a verdict according to the evidence presented in the courtroom.
Last week, the chief justice reminded the jury Lehrmann was presumed innocent. She said it was up to the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ms Higgins alleges Lehrmann raped her inside a ministerial office in Parliament House following a night out drinking with colleagues. He denies any sexual interaction happened.
In his closing argument, prosecutor Shane Drumgold urged the jury to disregard discussions of political movements and workplace cultures sparked by the case.
He said the case was not about the culture inside Parliament House or the Me Too movement but about what happened on a couch inside a minister's office in the early hours of Saturday, March 23, 2019.
Mr Drumgold said Ms Higgins had been a credible and honest witness whose version of events that night had not wavered.
Meanwhile, he said Lehrmann had given inconsistent accounts about why he was at parliament on the night of the alleged assault to the security guards, to his boss and to the police.
The prosecutor suggested Lehrmann's intent was to go to Parliament House so he could be alone with the drunk and vulnerable Ms Higgins.
Lehrmann's defence lawyer Steven Whybrow told the court nothing happened that night and suggested Ms Higgins had fabricated her account to save her job.
He said a closer look at her evidence made the prosecution's case against his client totally untenable.
Mr Whybrow pointed to inconsistencies in Ms Higgins' story, including that she had told police and others she had attended doctor appointments after the alleged assault.
He suggested Ms Higgins fabricated doctor appointments at the time to make it more believable she had been sexually assaulted.
The jury must reach a unanimous verdict.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
Lifeline 13 11 14
