The former barrister for Bruce Lehrmann has told an ACT board of inquiry he disagrees with the chief prosecutor's view that police were hostile toward efforts to prosecute Mr Lehrmann.

Steve Whybrow has given a second day of evidence to the inquiry, which is examining how the case against Mr Lehrmann was handled by criminal justice agencies.

Mr Lehrmann has maintained his innocence and there have been no findings against him, after the trial was abandoned.

Today, Mr Whybrow was quizzed about his perception of the relationship between police and the prosecution.

In the letter to the ACT's Chief Police Officer which sparked the inquiry, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold said he had felt pressure from police not to indict Mr Lehrmann.

Under questioning from Mr Drumgold's counsel, Mark Tedeschi KC, Mr Whybrow told the inquiry he disagreed that police were resentful of the prosecution's efforts.

"I don't mean that they were loving and kind," he said.

But Mr Whybrow did single out one officer, Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman, who he said was "unhappy with various aspects of the trial".

In his statement to the inquiry released last week, Mr Whybrow revealed Detective Inspector Boorman told him he thought Mr Lehrmann was innocent, and if he were found guilty he would resign.

Defence relationship with police scrutinised

The inquiry has also probed Mr Whybrow's relationship with police, including his efforts to get access to documents the DPP had refused to disclose.

It earlier heard Mr Whybrow phoned Detective Superintendent Scott Moller in the weeks before the trial and asked him whether he agreed with the DPP's view that the documents were privileged.

Mr Moller had prepared at least one of the investigative review documents which was being withheld from the defence.

"I just took it upon myself to go straight to the horse's mouth."

Mr Whybrow said he saw nothing improper about asking questions of an officer directly.

"It's a fundamental proposition of litigation that nobody owns a witness," he said.

"Every time I speak to a witness … I say you don't have to talk to me."

DPP's lawyer defends media statement

During his testimony yesterday, Mr Whybrow reflected on Mr Drumgold's comments to the media when he announced the abandonment of the re-trial, and said he thought they were an overreach.

Mr Drumgold said his view about the reasonable prospect of convicting Mr Lehrmann had not changed, but there would be no re-trial out of concern for Ms Higgins's health and welfare.

Today, Mr Tedeschi put to Mr Whybrow there was nothing inappropriate about the DPP's comments.

"The community was entitled to know that the decision was not based on some view of the evidence in the trial," Mr Tedeschi said.

Mr Whybrow rejected that proposition.

"At that point it was moot," he said.

Mr Whybrow's statement to the inquiry has also revealed a brief SMS exchange between he and Mr Drumgold after the matter had been discontinued.

Mr Drumgold initiated the discussion on December 5.

"Hi Steve – a practice I have adopted in recent years after particularly hard fought and stressful matters, is to grab lunch with opposing counsel when the dust settles. I would like to extend that to you following Lehrmann when you are free."

Mr Whybrow sent a brief response the following day.

"Hi Shane

Let's revisit in the new year maybe."

Mr Whybrow's testimony has now concluded, and the inquiry has been adjourned for the rest of the week.

It will resume publicly next Monday.