Ipso Facto: Will we finally see David Sharaz in the witness box?

David Sharaz.

This week, The Australian revealed central claims underpinning Linda Reynolds’ defamation case against Brittany Higgins, including allegations the former Liberal staffer and her now-husband David Sharaz cultivated a detailed plan to destroy the Morrison government.

Those revelations left an obvious question: Will we finally see Sharaz, who has so far evaded the witness box, forced to give evidence and be cross-examined?

During Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial against Network 10, Federal Court judge Michael Lee more than once queried why Sharaz was not giving evidence in the case.

At one point – to much laughter – he remarked that Sharaz was “like the prophet Elijah … there’s a place for him at the table but he never turns up”.

Reynolds has launched two defamation proceedings in the WA Supreme Court: one against Sharaz, another against Higgins.

Sharaz has said he will not fight Reynolds in court. Therefore, it is highly unlikely he will give evidence in his own defamation matter.

But as for the Higgins’ case? Whether Sharaz will be called is anyone’s guess.

Linda Reynolds.

Brittany Higgins.

Former WA Supreme Court judge Kenneth Martin thinks it is unlikely Reynolds would subpoena Sharaz to give evidence.

“To call an uncooperative witness and put them in the witness box is quite dangerous,” he says. “Plus, if Reynolds called Sharaz, she wouldn’t be allowed to cross-examine him. The only questions she could put are those that are not of a leading nature - what, when, who, how questions.”

That leaves the question of whether Higgins would call him as a “friendly” witness.

“There are two problems with that,” Martin says. “The first is, how does Sharaz help her case? The second, is that if Higgins called Sharaz as a witness, she would expose him to cross-examination from Reynolds’ side.

“I would have thought if they put Sharaz in the witness box as a witness for Higgins, the opposition would be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a day-long cross-examination.”

Martin also poured water over suggestions Labor frontbenchers Katy Gallagher or Penny Wong could be called to the witness box.

However, former prime minister Scott Morrison is still expected to give evidence.

Higgins is expected to defend the defamation allegations, with a spokesperson this week saying she had been “steadfast in her truth about the aftermath of her rape in Parliament House”.

Tell me what you think at [e-mail]

Legal movements

• Jurist Michael Allen has been sworn in as the chief magistrate of the NSW Local Court. With almost 40 years’ experience, including as Deputy Chief Magistrate and most recently as a NSW District Court judge, he has worked in many areas of the law including family and domestic violence, serious crime, mental health, drug and alcohol and workers compensation.
• Insurance disputes lawyer Sarah Metcalfe has joined Wotton + Kearney as a partner, leaving Clyde & Co after more than four years.
• Queensland firm Thynne + Macartney has promoted three lawyers.Wills and estates expert Vicky Martin has been appointed special counsel. Planning and environment lawyer Lewis Radford and disputes and insolvency lawyer Conor Harvey have been promoted to associate.

The lawyer, the drug dealer and the former bikie

A word to the wise: If you’re a practicing solicitor, don’t encourage a witness to falsely change their statement to police. Especially if that witness is a drug dealer, and your client is a former Rebels bikie.

Unfortunately, West Australian solicitor Gary Rodgers didn’t quite get that memo, and has been struck off.

Rodgers last year was found guilty of pressuring the dealer into changing a statement to police to help exculpate his client, former Rebels bikie Steven Taylor. Taylor was, at the time, facing kidnapping and torture charges.

Rodgers appealed the decision, but the appellate court found it was satisfied he had agreed with at least one other person to pervert the course of justice. However, the court was not satisfied the state had proven its trial case, and Rodgers’ conviction was quashed.

WA Supreme Court judge Paul Tottle, in a judgment released this week, said the removal of Rodgers “serves an important aspect of the public interest by demonstrating to the public legal practitioners are required to observe the highest standards of honesty and integrity”.

“A failure to observe those standards calls into question the suitability of a legal practitioner to enjoy the privilege of practising as a lawyer,” Justice Tottle said.

Want this column (and more!) right in your inbox? Sign up for the Ipso Facto newsletter.