Senator Linda Reynolds takes stand, Brittany Higgins is lashed over Instagram post
Senator Linda Reynolds has told a court of the “odd” things Bruce Lehrmann said before he was fired, before the senator’s lawyers lash Brittany Higgins for an Instagram post.
Breaking News
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Brittany Higgins has been lashed by lawyers representing Senator Linda Reynolds for posting an Instagram story while her former boss gives evidence in the pair’s blockbuster defamation trial.
Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz are being sued by Senator Reynolds in the WA Supreme Court after failed mediation hearings.
The couple shared posts in 2022 and 2023 which were critical of Ms Reynolds’ handling of Ms Higgins’ allegation she was raped in Parliament House in 2019 by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann.
Mr Lehrmann was plead not guilty to rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.
The Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to pursue a retrial and dropped the charge against Mr Lehrmann, who has continued to maintain his innocence.
HIGGINS LASHED OVER INSTAGRAM POST
Brittany Higgins broke her silence on Instagram while the senator was giving evidence in the proceedings, taking to Instagram to post a book she contributed to called “How Many More Women” by Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida.
The book is about sexual assault victims and laws that silence female victims.
Ms Higgins wrote on the post: “pertinent reading”.
Her story was included in the book but redacted due to the criminal trial, but is now being added back into a second edition of the book.
Senator Reynold’s lawyer Martin Bennett told the court before it closed on Monday afternoon that Ms Higgins should not be commenting.
He said the legal team will be amending the statement of claim to include the post.
“We will keep amending, it is extraordinary aggravating conduct,” Mr Bennett said.
Ms Higgins’ lawyer Rachel Young told the court the post was not a reference to Monday’s hearing but to the book, and she would talk to her client.
Outside of court, Mr Bennett said it was “strange” the post was made as soon as the senator started giving her evidence.
He told reporters he was concerned the behaviour might continue and he would leave it up to the court to make a judgement whether it aggravated damages.
“The role of tort would be relevant to that,” he said.
“GOBSMACKED AND ANGRY”
After the alleged assault, the court heard Senator Reynolds returned to Canberra on March 31 from Perth to attend her first Cabinet Meeting, and was told she needed to call her chief of staff Fiona Brown.
The senator was told there had been a security breach in the office the weekend prior and two staff members went into the ministerial suite while drunk.
She was told Mr Lehrmann had left and Ms Higgins stayed there.
“I had a number of reactions, the first was complete incongruity, I had never heard of staff going back to a ministerial suite after a night out with friends, particularly in the defence portfolio,” she said.
“I was gobsmacked and angry. Every staff signs a ministerial code of conduct and knows they don’t go back.
“This was Tuesday when we were told about the security breach I was quite angry.”
The senator said she had been minister for less than three weeks when this occurred and she was embarrassed.
“I had literally never heard of that happening before and haven’t since then,” she said.
“Ms Higgins had been checked on twice and she was partially undressed, I felt sorry for her because she had been drunk and woke up in the boss’s office.
“There was nothing in there that anyone had any concern of anything more than a security breach.”
Senator Reynolds said she spoke to Ms Brown about the security breach and the best course of action, given Mr Lehrmann was leaving anyway.
“We were going through the process of having him terminated because I did not want to pass the problem onto another minister unknowingly,” she said.
“M Brown said to me while Ms Higgins could not remember much of that night, she did say on Thursday that she remembered Mr Lehrmann on top of her.
“When you have two people in their 20s out together and someone who can’t remember what happened, it could have been a whole range of things that may have occurred.
“She did not say there had been a sexual assault or crime. We both thought if she could not remember and was worried, we thought we should help her and gave her employee assistance line.”
The senator said she wasn’t happy with Ms Higgins wanting to see her doctor, and wanted to provide assistance, but they were not the people to investigate the matter or to provide her with counselling.
Senator Reynolds told the court she wanted to report the matter to the AFP, but HR told Ms Brown they couldn’t approach them.
“You need to give person agency to make a referral or complaint, at that point she had not made a complaint,” the senator said.
The senator met with Ms Higgins and Ms Brown the following Monday, telling the court her office was the only private place to meet in the ministerial suite and at that point there was no allegation of rape.
The senator said when Ms Higgins and Ms Brown came in, she did not get any “vibes” there was anything wrong - there were no “sideway glances” at the couch.
“I started the meeting asking how she was, she said she was okay and upset,” Senator Reynolds said.
“She was mortified and embarrassed about the security breach and took responsibility for her actions. She wanted to stay working for me and I told her, her job was safe but to learn from it and not to do it again.
“Brittany said she went out and had to much to drink, she came back with Bruce and that things were hazy from there.
“She did not repeat the words she used with Fiona, but did say she remembered waking up, got dressed and left,
“It reminded me she had been naked and taken her clothes off.”
The senator told her staffer if she couldn’t remember she should talk to someone such as the AFP, where she could make a complaint and they would investigate or help her to remember.
“I told her Fiona and I would be there for her, but she was not keen on doing that,” Senator Reynolds told the court.
“I reiterated and drew on personal experience, that it is best not to let things fester and if she thinks something happened she should talk to the AFP and talk to counselling services.
“She thanked me and was grateful she was keeping her job because other ministers would have sacked them both
LEHRMANN NOT A “FIT OR PROPER PERSON”: SENATOR
Senator Reynolds took to the stand just after lunch to begin her week-long examination, where she told the court she had inherited a number of staff from former minister Steven Ciobo.
She employed Mr Lehrmann who had ministerial experience with George Brandis and Bridget McKenzie. Mr Lehrmann was recommended to her and worked for her for six months.
Chief of staff Fiona Brown also started working for the senator, while Ms Higgins was appointed to a secretarial role from Mr Ciobo’s office.
The senator said Ms Higgins was employed on the front desk, but she wanted experience in the media unit which was accommodated.
Senator Reynolds said she was alerted about a security breach involving Mr Lehrmann, and had concerns about his behaviour and the odd things he said.
“He had boasted about people he knew and things he had done,” the senator said.
“He said he knew Duncan Lewis head of ASIO, a senior national security figure.
“Ms Brown contacted him and he had never heard of Bruce, so we knew it wasn’t true.”
The senator was also told that Mr Lehrmann had left a classified document he had no right to have in her office, which was left unattended on a desk.
“It was highly classified document, it should never have been in my office or in his possession,” Senator Reynolds said.
“We had a strong opinion that he had no place in defence or a ministerial wing.”
The senator said and Ms Brown did not believe Mr Lerhmann was a fit or proper person to hold a security clearance and agreed to report him.
“DUSTY IN PARLIAMENT”
Senator Reynolds told the court she had two different career paths, working for the Army Reserves and a career in politics.
The court heard in the early years of her career, Senator Reynold spent time in various roles working for the Liberal Party at Parliament House in Canberra.
She told her lawyer Martin Bennett she worked and partied during her early years in Canberra.
“I was in my early 20s and also socialised and went out with other staff,” she said.
“The culture then was a lot harder in terms of partying with MPs, we used to socialise a lot more with media and MPs.
“On Wednesday nights, it was the night MPs, staff and journalists would go out for dinner together.
“It was often dusty in parliament the next day before MPs went home on Friday.”
The court heard when she worked with the Army Reserves, Senator Reynolds was promoted up the ranks but returned to politics after she was offered a job as chief of staff for the Minister for Justice and Customs Chris Ellison.
TRAUMA FROM BALI BOMBINGS
She spoke of how a number of significant events changed the face of security in Australia, including 9/11, which was a “day that changed everything”.
“It was a very impactful time,” the senator said.
The senator spoke of the trauma she endured during the Bali Bombings in October 2002.
“I was the one that got the first calls from the AFP, I got the first calls from the Sunday morning here in Perth,” she said.
“I was going for a run down the zigzag in Kalamunda, I had to keep stopping to write the latest casualty counts in the rocks on the zigzag.”
She flew to Canberra with her boss when they realised the enormity of the Australian lives that had been lost, then flew overnight to Bali in the government jet.
Senator Reynolds told the court she had never smelled human decay before she landed in Bali, with the smell and scenes still haunting her today.
“To this day I can still smell it, in the army I had not smelt body parts before. Then we went to the morgue, you can imagine how hard that was,” she said.
After three years in the job with Mr Ellison she was burnt out and was offered a job in the Australian Army in Canberra.
After various roles with the Army she was eventually promoted to Brigadier and was the first female reservist to hold that position.
In 2013, she returned to Perth to seek pre-selection with the Liberal Party.
HIGGINS’ “DISTRESS”
Brittany Higgins’ defence lawyer Rachel Young SC completed her opening submissions on Monday, telling the court Ms Higgins felt isolated while she worked for Senator Reynolds in Perth, contrary to what the senator’s lawyers claimed in their opening argument.
Ms Young said her client had worked hard while she was in Perth to see the Liberal Party reelected and it was not surprising to see her smiling at events.
“Behind the scenes her distress was evident,” Ms Young said.
Text messages shown in court had suggested Ms Higgins was having a fun time poolside.
But others texts displayed in court on Monday showed Ms Higgins had felt angry.
In text messages to her ex partner, Mr Higgins said she felt she anger towards the people in her party, and that her boss was being offered all this support after she had been raped in her office.
“She is clearly experiencing distress and anger while in Perth,” Ms Young said.
“These text messages need to be read in addition to the fun she was having at campaign events.
“Two years it took Ms Higgins to speak up, she found courage in 2021 to talk about her experience and workplace culture at Parliament House.
“Whether or not you agree, it is her agency and her choice how she heals.”
CONSPIRACY CLAIM “HARD TO PROVE”
Ms Young said it would be extremely difficult for the senator to prove Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz’s sole purpose was to damage her reputation.
While the senator says she suffered loss, damage, and suffered physical and mental harm by the actions of Ms Higgins, Ms Young said it was highly unusual in the tort of conspiracy to claim for damages that resulted from physical or mental ailment.
Ms Young said the amount of damages in relation to these claims were very low, equating to about $2400.
Ms Young told the court the rational relationship for harm sustained by Senator Reynolds was when the posts in question were published, not the relationship between events that occurred in 2021.
She said more than 20 witnesses would give evidence on behalf of the senator that witnessed events in 2021.
“Very few will give evidence to assist with what happened in 2023 and how the senator felt about the publications being sued upon,” she said.
HIGGINS “RESPONDED TO ATTACKS”
The defence told the court Ms Higgins gained a public following after she spoke out about her alleged rape.
The court was told it was a matter of public interest that related to issues such as workplace safety in a location as important as Parliament House, and had related to the performance of a commonwealth minister.
Ms Young said the social media posts referred to articles that were published in the media and it was in that context the posts were made.
She told the court Ms Higgins had not attempted to defame the senator, but she had responded to attacks that were made against her own position.
She also argued it was not fair to call Ms Higgins the publisher of a post that was made by Mr Sharaz, based on communication the pair had.
Ms Young said the posts were made in a different context with different imputations then what is being claimed.
“Your honour is being asked to do something very novel, the events being sued upon are two years proceeding those posts,” Ms Young said.
SENATOR “NOT SUPPORTIVE”: COURT
The court was told the senator only met with Ms Higgins once to discuss the event, and there was evidence the senator understood the possibility sexual activity between employees had occurred and there was concern about criminality of the activity.
Ms Young said the senator had been told Ms Higgins was inebriated and she and Mr Lehrmann entered the ministerial suite.
The court heard the senator knew Mr Lehrmann left alone and in a hurry.
The senator was told Ms Higgins was undressed and found alone in the early house by two security officers and Ms Higgins said a male was on top of her.
“By the time the meeting was held the senator knew about the possibility of untoward sexual activity,” Ms Young told the court.
“Ms Higgins was interviewed by the senator just metres from the lounge were she was found undressed.
“She did not tell Ms Higgins everything she had been told, that security found her undressed on the lounge.”
Ms Young said it was not the right response for an employer to tell an employee to find support elsewhere.
“That is not supportive and not handling the allegation correctly,” Ms Young said.
She said the senator gave Ms Higgins inadequate options by making her choose her career or to go home to the Gold Coast for support and without her job.
“Through her chief of staff, the senator knew how she was found, and the senator had told Alex Hawke about the incident through a call to Ms Brown,” Ms Young told the court.
But in the plaintiff’s opening address, lawyer Martin Bennett told the court there were other factors, such as a counsellor had been made available to Ms Higgins.
But her defence argued it took time before she could see a counselor and was initially offered support by police.
“Her frustration of delay was demonstrated by Ms Higgins, who said she was left to her own devices and was on a waiting list to talk to someone,” Ms Young said.
“She expressed frustration for the length of time it took to access support to deal with her trauma.”
BRUCE LEHRMANN “SHIFTY”
Ms Young told the court the senator must have known a sexual assault had occurred in her office with information she was provided before she met with Ms Higgins.
The lawyer told the court her client was raped in the workplace by a more senior colleague, fact which had not been contested.
“She had only just joined the senators’ team, she was a junior employee,” Ms Young said.
“She was raped in the actual office of the senator. Ms Higgins was observed to be intoxicated and was later observed by a security guard who checked on her.
“In the week that followed it became clear Ms Higgins was in significant distress and days later her rapist was fired.”
Ms Young said it was hard to believe the senator had no notion that a sexual assault had occurred.
She said Senator Reynolds had enough intuition to describe Ms Higgins’ rapist as “shifty.”
“It is not credible to say that she had no inkling of a sexual assault because Ms Higgins did not use the word rape, that she had no idea,” Ms Young said.
“She (Senator Reynolds) had a mountain of information that Ms Higgins had been sexually assaulted.”
BOLD ALLEGATIONS
Ms Young said her client accepted that the social media posts conveyed the imputation the senator mishandled Ms Higgins’ allegations.
But Ms Higgins’ lawyers did not accept the senator’s claim Ms Higgins suggested the senator failed to provide support or engaged in a “political cover-up” in social media posts.
She said the senator’s claims based on Justice Lee’s findings were also misplaced and is not the subject of the current proceedings.
“The alleged plan to inflict political damage on the senator and government is up to the senator to prove,” Ms Young said.
“It is a bold allegation that two young adults in their 20s planned to bring down the government.
“Ms Higgins was a Liberal Party supporter through and through, she was clearly aligned to the party, worked for them, travelled interstate for them and voted for them. The alleged plan will not be proven factual, it is ultimately irrelevant.”
“HARASSING AND RETRAUMATISING”
Ms Young told the court Senator Reynolds has laid the blame for her loss of reputation on one of the most junior staffers who was raped in her office by another employee.
Ms Young said her client’s truth that she had been raped is uncontested and the matter is not and never has been a “fairytale”.
She told the court the senator had sought to trivialise why Ms Higgins spoke out in 2021 and it was retraumatising for her client.
“Miss Higgins’ truth — her truth — as to the rape is uncontested by the Senator,” Ms Young told the court
“For the Senator through her oral and written opening to suggest it may be so (a fairytale) is misplaced, harassing and retraumatising.”
Ms Young told the court the senator had sought to “trivialise alleged events in 2021 which are irrelevant”.
The lawyer said the social media posts at the centre of the defamation case were published two years after The Project interview was broadcast.
“The focus of her case relies upon a novel extension of the law of aggravated damages and tort conspiracy,” Ms Young argued.
“The conspiracy was later added by the senator is wrong and should not be found.”
The trial continues
Originally published as Senator Linda Reynolds takes stand, Brittany Higgins is lashed over Instagram post
Child ‘trampled to death’ in asylum seekers’ Channel crossing: minister
Child 'trampled to death' in asylum seekers' Channel crossing: minister
Read more
Hezbollah battles troops on border as Israel pounds Lebanon
Hezbollah battles troops on border as Israel pounds Lebanon
Read more