Brittany Higgins’ lawyer slams Senator Linda Reynolds in court with bombshell accusations

Senator Linda Reynolds has given at times ‘demonstrably wrong’ evidence to the WA Supreme Court in her defamation fight against Brittany Higgins, a lawyer for the former staffer has said.

Senator Reynolds is suing Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz over a number of social media posts the pair made in 2022 and 2023, which were critical of her handling of Ms Higgins’ allegation she was raped in Parliament House in 2019 by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann.

Rachel Young SC, acting for Ms Higgins, told the court on Monday Senator Reynolds should be found to be an unreliable witness unless the information she gave had been corroborated by other witnesses.

Ms Young said the senator gave answers throughout her evidence about the conduct of other people, particularly Ms Higgins and the Attorney General, when they were not called for.

She said the senator even told the court that these events had led to Senator’s Kitching’s untimely death.

Ms Young told the court the senator’s evidence was ‘problematic, unreliable and self-serving’ and at times were ‘demonstrably wrong.’

Mr Lehrmann was charged with rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.

The charge was dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence.

Senator Linda Reynolds (pictured) has given at times ‘demonstrably wrong’ evidence to the WA Supreme Court in her defamation fight against her former staffer

Mr Lehrmann lost a subsequent civil defamation case in April this year when the Federal Court determined, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins at Parliament House. He is appealing that decision.

SENATOR’S EVIDENCE ‘PROBLEMATIC’: DEFENCE

Ms Young argued Senator Reynolds’ evidence was problematic because she knew or suspected a sexual assault had taken place.

During her evidence, Senator Reynolds denied knowing there could have been a sexual assault in her office, and had not wanted to jump to conclusions.

Ms Young said the answer was ‘problematic.’

She said the senator told the court she was ‘gobsmacked’ and ‘angry’ because she had never heard of staffers entering Parliament House after hours while drunk.

Ms Young said there was evidence that the most probable inference the senator knew or suspected that Ms Higgins had been sexually assaulted.

Some of the evidence included the DPS Report, which the senator said she had carefully read, which documented that Ms Higgins was clearly affected by alcohol and was found undressed in the senator’s office.

Ms Young told the court the senator had thought counselling should be offered to Ms Higgins, despite her not mentioning anything about a sexual assault.

She said the senator had invited Ms Higgins’ father to a meeting, and it would not make sense to invite him if that meeting had just been about the security breach.

The lawyer also argued the senator’s meeting with Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner Leanne Close revealed she had prior knowledge which was corroborated by what the senator said to the AFP officer.

Brittany Higgins lawyers Rachael Young (right), Kate Pedersen (left) and Carmel Galati (behind) arrive at the Supreme Court on Monday. Picture: NewsWire / Sharon Smith

‘We say you should accept the evidence of deputy commissioner close over the senator’s evidence which can’t be believed,’ she said.

‘Close had a particular memory of this meeting, contrary to the plaintiff’s submission.’

Ms Young argued the senator told Ms Close during their meeting that they became aware of the incident on Tuesday, that it happened on Saturday on my couch.

‘The deputy commissioner’s records state the senator pointed to the couch and says we found out through a DPS report,’ she said.

‘What is important about that comment… is that Deputy Commissioner Close explained that she had not thought it occurred in the senator’s office,’ she said.

‘She was quite surprised because she did not realise they were talking about a sexual assault in her office and they were sitting in a crime scene.

‘This evidence is entirely believable from an officer with 33 year’s experience.

‘A highly experience police officer with that kind of memory peg that we were sitting in a crime scene is entirely believable.’

SENATOR’S ACTIONS QUESTIONABLE, DEFENCE SAYS

Ms Young said the court should find Ms Higgins’ justifications were made out through evidence that the senator harassed her client.

She said the senator had leaked confidential material to the media and carried out questionable conduct during the criminal trial by interacting with the lawyer representing Mr Lehrmann.

She said the senator’s submission in the Sofronoff inquiry demonstrated she wanted to make it a criminal offence for complainants to speak out to the media or parliament.

‘The senator wished to silence sexual assault victims,’ she said.

Ms Young told the court Ms Higgins’ posts were protected by qualified privilege, and defences of fair comment and honest opinion.

Lawyers for Senator Reynolds and Ms Higgins will deliver their closing arguments in the case this week. Picture: NewsWire / Sharon Smith

‘MISHANDLING’ ALLEGATIONS

Ms Young told the court the senator mishandled Ms Higgins’ allegations by being aware of the alleged incident in her office, but still chose to have the meeting there.

She said the meeting with Ms Higgins and chief of staff Fiona Brown took place just metres from the couch.

Ms Young argued it was clear from the DPS report that Ms Higgins was found undressed on the couch in the senator’s office.

She said it was also clear in Ms Close’s evidence that the senator knew it happened on the couch in her office.

‘If there was any suspicion that the activity occurred in her private office, the fact the senator chose her office for the meeting was problematic,’ she said.

‘The office was an inappropriate place for a private meeting.’

SENATOR LEAKED ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ COMMUNICATIONS

Ms Young said an interview Senator Reynolds gave on spotlight also formed part of the harassment justification.

She said the senator gave her view point on Ms Higgins’ allegations against her, but it went much further when she talked about the veracity of Ms Higgins’ rape allegation.

She said during the TV interview, the senator responded ‘yes’ to a question that asked her about the multimillion-dollar Commonwealth settlement being paid on ‘the basis of crime that may not have been committed’.

Ms Young said the senator’s statement had undermined Ms Higgins’ claim and the settlement she received.

Ms Young argued there was nothing wrong with putting an alternative viewpoint to the media, but it crossed the line and became harassment when the comments undermined Ms Higgins rape allegation.

She said the senator could have said she thought she had done everything to support her former employee or had tried to give her agency and left it at that.

‘That view would have been accepted as a defensible comment,’ she said.

‘The line is crossed when the senator’s position is to deploy communications that are confidential to defend her position.

‘These were very particular things the senator disseminated.’

Ms Young said the communciations that were leaked by the senator were confidential and privileged.

‘When the line is crossed when she has obtained this communication as her former employer, then they are disseminated,’ she said.

SENATOR DISTRESSED BEFORE POSTS

Ms Young told the court Senator Reynolds had felt distressed and upset about allegations she mishandled Ms Higgins rape prior to the social media posts in question.

She said the senator had blamed her former employee for her political demise.

Ms Young said evidence provided by 25 witnesses that were called during the trial did not provide much material about the impact the social media posts had on the senator.

Ms Young said the actual issue that needed to be resolved was the impact of the scrutiny which was most acute in 2021.

She argued those factors were born from questioning in the senate and her own conduct when she called Ms Higgins a ‘lying cow’.

Ms Young said it was also significant that the senator had pre-existing mental and health issues, and could not continue in her defence portfolio.

Ms Young said during the trial the court was told how the senator had improved in 2022 and 2023.

‘By the time we get to the publication of Ms Higgins’ posts which she is being sued upon the position is vastly different for the senator,’ she said.

‘PLAN’ NOT PROVEN

Ms Young told the court allegations by the senator about a ‘plan’ contrived by Ms Higgins her husband to destroy the senator and bring down the Morrison Government was not proved.

She said publicity about the allegations is what should have been expected on the grounds of accountability.

Ms Young said the senator was fixated on the politicisation of this matter, which she consistently brought up during her evidence by attacking the Attorney-General, Labor senators and the Commonwealth settlement in respect to the alleged rape.

Ms Young said that focus did not assist the court to deal with matters in the defamation proceedings.

The court has been told Senator Linda Reynolds’ evidence in court was ‘problematic’. Picture: NewsWire / Sharon Smith

HIGGINS’ HEAVY BURDEN

Ms Higgins defence lawyer Rachael Young began her closing remarks saying that the rape of her client in 2019 has caused and continues to cause her much suffering.

Ms Young told the court when her client spoke out it brought attention to gendered violence and safety issues and how they are handled in Australian workplaces that led to reforms.

She argued the scrutiny senator Reynolds’ faced in the aftermath about her conduct should have been expected as the employer of the accused and victim.

‘Without question the heaviest burden will continue to be faced by Ms Higgins, throughout her life and on her mental health,’ said.

Hundreds of documents were tendered to the WA Supreme Court last week which saw lawyers argue over last minute evidence before they deliver their closing statements over three days from Monday.

Text messages and correspondence between various players were submitted to the court as lawyers set out to prove their case.

The week had been set aside to hear evidence from Ms Higgins, but her lawyers told the court she would not longer be called to the witness stand and provided medical reports to excuse her from giving oral evidence.

Instead, Justice Paul Tottle agreed to accept portions of evidence from Ms Higgins that had been provided to other courts during the criminal trial and Mr Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network 10.

HIGH PROFILE WITNESSES

Over the course of the trial, high profile witnesses gave evidence including former prime minister Scott Morrison, former senator Marise Payne and award-winning news.com.au political editor Samantha Maiden who broke the story after she interviewed Ms Higgins about her allegations in 2021.

From Monday to Wednesday this week, the court will hear from lawyers representing the senator and Ms Higgins as they deliver their closing statements in the high-stakes case.

Both parties risk losing their homes, with Senator Reynolds revealing she had to mortgage her home to cover legal fees for the trial which could run to more than $1m.

Ms Higgins revealed she would be forced to sell her $700,000 house in France in order to defend the case brought by Senator Reynolds.

The pair purchased the five-bedroom chateau in Lunas after moving overseas last year for a ‘fresh start’.