‘Ten exposed by flaws in Brittany Higgins rape claims’
The Project’s producer has told a court that he had ‘no proof’ of Brittany Higgins’ claim that if she proceeded with police charges over the alleged rape, she’d lose her job.
The Project should have addressed “serious inconsistencies” in what Brittany Higgins said about whether then-minister Linda Reynolds and her chief of staff Fiona Brown “supported” her going to police and whether she would lose her job if she did so, Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister has suggested.
Network Ten producer Angus Llewellyn, who was cross-examined by Matthew Richardson SC for the second full day, agreed a main premise of the broadcast was that Ms Higgins “was forced to choose between going to the police or having a job”.
The program on February 15, 2021, opened with the words: ‘Tonight, claims of rape, roadblocks to a police investigation, and a young woman forced to choose between her career, and the pursuit of justice.”
The program is the subject of Mr Lehrmann’s defamation proceedings in the Federal Court.
The episode detailed accusations that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on March 23, 2019, but did not name him as the alleged attacker. He has consistently denied raping Ms Higgins.
The court was played part of a Project interview between Ms Higgins and Lisa Wilkinson in which Ms Higgins gives an account of a meeting she had with Senator Reynolds and Ms Brown in the office in which she was allegedly raped, on April 1, 2019.
Ms Higgins said: “She was apologetic. She was nice … and (she said) if I chose to go to the police, we would support you and it was sort of this, it felt like a weird sort of HR ticking a box moment.”
The court also heard that during a five-hour pre-interview on January 27, 2021, Ms Higgins told staff that Ms Brown and Senator Reynolds said “if you choose to proceed with police … we wouldn’t stop you”, which she called a “very specifically crafted line”. Later, Wilkinson asked whether Ms Higgins was “told” she would lose her job if she “proceeded with the police charges”.
Ms Higgins responded: “Not explicitly, but it was clear. It was … you can proceed with this, we’re not going to stop you, but you just don’t have a job.”
Mr Richardson said there were “serious inconsistencies” in Ms Higgins’ account of what Senator Reynolds and Ms Brown were saying. Llewellyn disagreed.
Judge Michael Lee interjected. “Are you saying that at the time the program was broadcast you had, to use your words, no proof of the allegation that she was being told, that if she proceeded with police charges … she’d lose her job?” he said.
Llewellyn responded: “I did not have proof. So yes.”
Llewellyn repeated it was what was “implied” by Senator Reynolds and Ms Brown’s words, rather than the words themselves.
“Ms Brown is a very smart, clever, respected operator, and so is Minister Reynolds, they wouldn’t say something overtly like that. And that’s why … we’ve listened carefully to how it was explained,” he said.
The court also heard Andrew Carswell, a media adviser for the Prime Minister’s Office, gave Llewellyn a statement about Senator Reynolds the night before the broadcast.
“The staff member indicated they would like to speak to the Australian Federal Police, which the minister supported and the office facilitated,” the statement reads.
Mr Carswell also sent a copy of an email exchange, on background, from the assistant secretary, advice and support branch, described as “some sort of HR role”, to Ms Brown. It was dated March 29, 2019, three days after Ms Higgins said she first met with Ms Brown.
It states: “Ms Brown has notified her (Ms Higgins) that should she choose to, she’s able to pursue a complaint including a complaint made to the police, and that to do so would be within her rights.”
Mr Richardson asked Llewellyn whether he thought he should revisit Ms Higgins’ “inconsistent” account.
“No, because it was very clear in the discussions that Ms Higgins had with Minister Reynolds and Ms Brown … that the implications were different to the words. So the words might be correct here but, no, I didn’t feel there was need to go to her,” Llewellyn responded.
Llewellyn said in his affidavit to the Federal Court Ms Higgins was “very believable in the way she told her story”.
He also defended other aspects of Ten’s reporting on Wednesday, including that he gave ample time to Mr Lehrmann to respond to the allegations and was “genuine” in his requests for a response.
The hearing continues on Thursday.
More Coverage
China a key focus for Quad summit leaders
Chinese aggression and Taiwan’s future will take centre stage when Anthony Albanese meets with Quad leaders in the US.
Uni of Sydney ‘one of worst places to be Jewish’, senate told
A senate committee has been told of the 'problematic' treatment of Jewish students at Sydney's premier university, while a Jewish centre director at Monash University said social cohesion had broken down on campus.