Texts from Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister to Senator Linda Reynolds revealed in WA defamation trial
‘Crude’ texts from Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister sent to Senator Linda Reynolds before her former staff member’s criminal trial have been aired in the WA Supreme Court.
Senator Linda Reynolds received a text from Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister that read: “Karma comes to those who wait” ahead of her former staff member’s criminal trial, a court has heard.
Senator Reynolds is suing Brittany Higgins and her husband David Sharaz for defamation over social media posts shared 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 Mr Lehrmann.
He 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.
TEXTS FROM LEHRMANN’S BARRISTER
Senator Reynolds met with Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Steven Whybrow about information he asked for in relation to Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial.
He wanted a photo of the senator wearing the Carla Zampatti jacket Ms Higgins wore when she left Parliament House on the night of the alleged rape.
In messages, Mr Whybrow told the senator it was “about to get real soon” and another stated “karma comes to those who wait.”
The senator denied the comments were made in reference to Ms Higgins but were a “crude” way to say the trial was about to start and a judgment would be made in the criminal trial.
She said a prayer emoji she used in her response was the way she said thank you in text messages.
The court was told the senator often practiced “cyber hygiene” routinely deleting messages from her mobile phones, and took screenshots of anything important.
During the criminal trial the senator had tried to get transcripts from Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer but was advised they could not be provided to her, and she would need to go through her lawyer.
Senator Reynolds told the court she had not kept screenshots of his response.
She told the court she wanted the transcripts in relation to civil claim that was ongoing at the same time.
She was also curious about what was happening because it involved her former employees.
SENATOR DOUBLES DOWN ON KATE MIDDLETON COMMENT
Senator Reynolds told the court she had approached Mr Lehrmann’s barrister for transcripts of the criminal trial on behalf of her lawyer, but in hindsight conceded she should have had her lawyer ask instead.
“Mr Whybrow said it was inappropriate, and so did my lawyer,” she said.
Ms Young put to the senator that she wanted the transcripts so she knew what Ms Higgins was saying about her and her conduct.
The senator agreed she wanted to know what Ms Higgins was saying about her and any allegations of a political coverup.
She denied she wanted the transcripts to help damage Ms Higgins’ credibility during the criminal trial.
Ms Young put to the senator that her comments about Ms Higgins were “catty” because she was trying to convey Ms Higgins was wearing something she should not have worn.
“It was me being unduly annoyed by the fact she stole my jacket, when someone sent me a photo of her looking like Kate Middleton walking into the court it annoyed me,” she said.
Ms Young said to the senator: “Did you think Ms Higgins was trying to cover up” when she wore the senator’s jacket leaving Parliament House.
“I would have no issue if she returned (the jacket) but I never got it back,” Senator Reynolds said.
“I wasn’t angry, I was annoyed.”
“Did you think Ms Higgins could not wear such a lovely suit (to court),” Ms Young said.
“No,” the senator responded.
“I just got annoyed.
“I perceived it as Ms Higgins trying to imitate Kate Middleton and it did annoy me.
“I was still upset my jacket had been stolen.”
The senator denied sending the messages because she thought they would help Mr Lehermann’s lawyer discredit Ms Higgins.
“I did not do anything to help Bruce Lehrmann, I had sacked him, I was in no way seeking to assist his defence.”
She had shared a photo of Ms Higgins walking tino court with Mr Lerhmann’s lawyer on Whats App.
SENATOR ‘NEVER SAID’ SHE DIDN’T BELIEVE HIGGINS
Senator Reynolds told the court she publicised her version of events in the media because she sought to have her voice heard, but emphasised she “never said” she didn’t believe her former staffer’s allegation of rape.
The senator told the court she chose not to defend herself in parliament under parliamentary privilege because that is not how she operated.
“I had plenty of opportunity, but I chose not to reveal what Ms Higgins and I had discussed,” Senator Reynolds told the court.
“Parliament was never the place to litigate a civil or criminal matter.”
Senator Reynolds said this was why she had been so angry at the Labor Party for prosecuting allegations under parliamentary privilege.
She told the court a televised interview with Liam Bartlett on Seven’s Spotlight program was not about challenging Ms Higgins’ rape allegations.
The senator said she was not referring to the rape when asked about the compensation payment paid to Ms Higgins on the basis a crime had not been committed.
She said the interview that was televised had been edited and was not the full interview she gave.
“I certainly did not say to him that I did not believe the allegation of rape,” she said.
“To look at that properly you would need to look at the entire transcript.
“I can absolutely say that I never said to him that I disbelieved the rape allegation, I can absolutely say that.”
A clip was played of Senator Reynolds talking to journalists on the way into the WA Supreme Court this week.
In the clip, the senator said she was looking forward to the truth being told and she was glad the Attorney General had no jurisdiction in the Western Australian court.
Ms Young put to the senator that the comment was suggesting that the settlement made to Ms Higgins was improper and had been disparaging of her client.
“No it was not about Ms Higgins,” Senator Reynolds said.
“My point was the exact opposite, by taking this matter up in Western Australia means he had no jurisdiction here, I am paying for my own legal fees.
“It was not about the appropriateness of what Ms Higgins received, it was about me not being able to defend myself and what the Attorney General directed.”
SENATOR PULLED UP BY JUSTICE
Justice Paul Tottle pulled Senator Reynolds up during her evidence telling her she had not answered a question about why she sent an email to a journalist.
Ms Young had questioned the senator as to why she had sent the email to journalist Janet Albrechtsen.
“Just wait for a moment senator, don’t underestimate the pressure of giving evidence,” Justice Paul Totttle said, as Senator Reynolds was answering.
“Listen to Ms Young’s questions and keep your answers confined.”
“No, I was not forced by anybody,” Senator Reynolds said.
Seantor Reynolds had told the court she spoke to Ms Albrechtsen after the criminal trial and a civil matter between herself and Ms Higgins had ended.
“I had been demonised by things that weren’t true, I did it in a responsible way that would not breach the non-disparagement clause (in the civil settlement).
“I talked to Ms Albrechtsen and Liam Bartlett because I trusted them in terms of the process, it was not about the settlement at all.
“It was that I was not given the opportunity to deal with her claims in private.”
‘I WAS STITCHED UP’: REYNOLDS
During her fifth day of evidence, Senator Reynolds was questioned by Ms Higgins’ defence team about emails the senator sent to The Australian journalist Janet Albrechtsen.
The email contained a confidential letter from the Commonwealth to the senator that effectively told her she would not be required to attend mediation concerning Ms Higgins’ personal injury claim with the Commonwealth.
The court was told the senator used her personal Gmail account to send the emails.
Ms Young put to the senator that she wanted the journalist to know her position on the Commonwealth’s requirements of her.
The senator agreed, but told the court she also wanted her to know she had been denied the ability to defend claims that were being made against her.
“I was incredibly angry the Attorney General was stitching me up, I wanted her to know and the Australian public to know,” she said.
The senator denied sending the emails to Ms Albrechtsen because she would offer a perspective that would be favourable to her view.
“You wanted her to publish articles that you had been muzzled by the Commonwealth,” Ms Young said.
Senator Reynolds said she explained the situation to Ms Albrechtsen, but it was up to her how she reported it.
“I was not provided any opportunity to defend claims I had not yet seen, it was settled and I did not see the deed.
“(The Commonwealth) were not a model litigant.
“I told her my claims of corruption, it was up to her how she reported it.”
After an article was published in The Australian, Senator Reynolds said she was pleased to see the contents of the article.
She said the article outlined how she was denied the ability to defend herself by the Labor Government during the mediation.
Senator Reynolds told the court she was never upset about a settlement amount or Ms Higgins initiating the claim, but with how the Commonwealth dealt with it.
“I believe the Attorney General manipulated the law to muzzle me, I saw it as government corruption,” she said.
“Everything in this article was about the process of how (the claim) was handled, it
It was not about Ms Higgins.
“It was about what the government did and the process they took, in my mind it was corrupt which is clearly what I said and what was expressed.
“It was not about Ms Higgins, I could not make that assessment I was frozen out, I do not know what allegations about me were settled.
“It was about the allegations she made publicly, and in the draft, in my mind they were defendable allegations.
“I had numerous discussions with Ms Albrechtsen, it was not about the alleged rape, it was about the subsequent allegations about me and Ms Brown.”
FIGHT OVER MEDICAL RECORDS
Court resumed for the fifth day of the blockbuster trial with an application from Ms Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett to subpoena Ms Higgins’ medical records among other documents.
Brittany Higgins’ lawyers have opposed the subpoenas, which also include communications with lawyers around the time she received her $2.4 million Commonwealth compensation payment.
Ms Higgins’ lawyer, Rachel Young SC, said this defamation case was not about interrogating the Commonwealth settlement.
Justice Paul Tottle declined to rule immediately on the matter, but is expected to make a decision by tomorrow morning.
‘I NEVER SIGNED’: SENATOR FIGHTS BACK ON LEAKING CLAIMS
When Senator Reynolds received a letter about Ms Higgins’ claim with the Commonwealth she says she did not realise the Attorney-General would completely take over her defence and exclude her from mediation.
The letter was marked confidential, the court heard, and that legal privilege applied to protect communications with Ms Higgins until the end of the criminal trial and any appeal to conclude.
The court was told through the senator’s lawyers she took issue with the requirements set out by the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth did not agree to her requests.
The senator confirmed she sent the letter about six days later to a journalist at The Australian using her personal email account.
Ms Young put to the senator that she knew the letter was confidential.
“I never signed the letter, it was a proposal the Commonwealth wanted,” Senator Reynolds said.
“I had not agreed to their confidentiality or terms, I never signed or agreed to have an order to lock me down.
“What was top on my mind was the fact that I was not going to sign the confidentiality … I was not going to sign an agreement to be locked down.”
