‘He was stitching me up’: Reynolds lashes attorney-general on the stand over Higgins settlement

Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has accused Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus of “stitching her up” during the settlement of former staffer Brittany Higgins’ compensation claim, while defending her decision to leak confidential legal letters to the media.

During cross-examination in the WA Supreme Court on Thursday, Higgins’ lawyer Rachael Young, SC, grilled the former defence minister about her decision to forward three legally sensitive letters to The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen in December 2022.

Linda Reynolds has accused Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus of ‘stitching her up’ during the settlement of Brittany Higgins’ compensation claim. Credit: AAP, Alex Ellinghausen

The emails came six months after Reynolds had been named a defendant in Higgins’ compensation claim over the mishandling of her alleged rape by colleague Bruce Lehrmann in the senator’s parliamentary suite in 2019.

Lehrmann has maintained his innocence since his criminal trial was aborted due to juror misconduct in 2022.

The senator took issue with the Commonwealth’s plan to conduct her defence, forwarding Albrechtsen an email laying bare her concerns about the settlement’s handling — including that she was being muzzled.

The contents of those email were later republished in an article by The Australian.

Young put to Reynolds that she had sent the emails from her personal address to avoid them becoming public – a claim the senator denied.

And Higgins’ solicitor submitted that Reynolds leaked the letters to Albrechtsen about effectively being muzzled and her dissatisfaction with the process to ensure favourable coverage, a claim she again rejected.

“Did I want Ms Albrechtsen to know I had not had the ability to defend claims? Yes, I was incredibly angry because I could see the attorney-general of this country was stitching me up on allegations I had not seen and believed had expired,” Reynolds told the court.

“I had no expectation of how she would write it, I just provided evidence of corruption, and she could report that as she saw fit.”

When asked whether she believed leaking the emails would be taken as a breach of the confidentiality requirement, Reynolds told the court she had never consented to the government taking over her defence.

“They may well have never wanted it to see the light of day,” Reynolds said under oath.

In publicly challenging the process for the settlement with Higgins, Young told the court Reynolds ought to have known it would cast doubt over whether she should have received it.

But Reynolds reiterated she did not take issue with Ms Higgins’ pursuit of compensation over the ordeal, but rather how she believed the law had been manipulated to “muzzle her” and “government corruption”.

“You wanted it publicly known as to your truth about the handling of the rape allegation. You wanted Higgins to be publicly questioned about her version of events,” Young put to Reynolds.

“It wasn’t my truth, it was the truth. I wanted to do that at the mediation behind closed doors, but I was not afforded that opportunity. I never wanted to be in the position of having to defend things here,” Reynolds responded.

Brittany Higgins.Credit: Steven Siewert

Higgins was paid $2.4 million by the federal government following the settlement for lost earnings, medical expenses, legal fees and the humiliation she had experienced.

The court heard Reynolds had kept in contact with Albrechtsen, forwarding information about Higgins’ now-husband David Sharaz having “abruptly resigned from his job” and other documents she asked her to delete.

Young suggested they could only have been aimed at further denigrating the pair in the media, but Reynolds rejected the claim.

And Young interrogated Reynolds’ decision to participate in Channel 7’s Spotlight interview with Lehrmann, including a clip in which she agreed the former staffer had been paid millions in compensation on the basis of “a crime which may not have been committed”.

The rape allegation was later found to be true to the civil standard by the Federal Court in Lehrmann’s defamation trial against Network Ten over The Project’s expose, which Lehrmann is now appealing.

Reynolds rejected any insinuation she told Spotlight reporter Liam Bartlett she disbelieved Higgins’ rape allegation, arguing it was simply how the excerpt of her interview had been cut in post-production.

But she conceded the remark would have been broadcast to a significant audience, and that her choice of words would likely have offended and undermined Higgins as a rape complainant.

While poring over the media coverage, Young accused Reynolds of seeking to litigate whether she did enough to support her former staffer.

Again, Reynolds rejected the claim.

Reynolds was also quizzed at length about her decision to volunteer the names and contact details of staff members that may assist Lehrmann’s barrister Steven Whybrow, SC, which she defended and insisted had been done in consultation with her lawyer.

And the senator conceded texts she sent Whybrow accusing Higgins of having a “predilection for expensive clothes” and trying to imitate Princess of Wales Kate Middleton were “catty”.

Reynolds told the court the comment stemmed from being shown CCTV footage showing Higgins leaving Parliament House on the morning of her alleged rape in the senator’s Carla Zampatti jacket.

“It shouldn’t have, but it annoyed me,” Reynolds told the court.

“It was me being annoyed by her taking my jacket and dressing like Kate Middleton.”

“Did you ever think Higgins may have been trying to cover up when she left? Are you suggesting she wasn’t entitled or ought to have been wearing something the Princess of Wales had been wearing?” Young asked Reynolds.

“[Higgins] had made a point of commenting on her wardrobe, wearing white ... she had made it a thing. She was entitled to wear what she wanted. I’m not suggesting [my comment] makes rational sense,” Reynolds replied.

Young used the correspondence to further her argument that Reynolds did not act impartially during the criminal trial and was unfairly aiding the defence, a submission Reynolds rejected.

The WA Liberal senator has been pursuing Higgins for damages, as well as aggravated damages, for the past year over several social media posts she claims accuse her of using the media to harass Higgins.

She claims the posts were false and defamatory of her, brought her into public hatred and damaged her physical and mental health.

Higgins has allegedly sold her home in France to vigorously defend the claim on the basis that the imputations of harassment and the mishandling of her alleged rape are true.

Reynolds is expected to be cross-examined for another 24 hours before other witnesses appear next week, including former prime minister Scott Morrison and her own family members.

The trial is due to run until September 4.