Reynolds loses fight to grill Higgins’ psych over ‘materially different’ reports

Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds’ lawyers have lost a bid to grill Brittany Higgins’ doctor after claiming to have uncovered two “materially different” psychiatric reports inked on the same day, one of which underpinned the former staffer’s multimillion-dollar payout.

In a shock move on Thursday, the former defence minister’s lawyer Martin Bennett applied to call Higgins’ Queensland doctor Julio Clavijo to give evidence in Reynolds’ defamation trial against her.

WA Senator Linda Reynolds (right) and former staffer Brittany Higgins (centre) faced off again in court today. Higgins’ partner David Sharaz (left) did not have the financial means to take the matter to trial.Credit: Composite image by Aresna Villanueva

The final witness had just concluded sworn testimony when Bennett told the court Clavijo had produced a bundle of documents on subpoena overnight, including two psychiatric reports of Higgins he claimed had been penned and signed on the same date but in materially different terms.

He branded the documents from January 2022 “significant” because one was relied upon to support Higgins’ personal injury claim against Reynolds and the Commonwealth over her alleged rape at Parliament House.

While the substance of the documents is protected by a strict confidentiality order, Bennett claimed the unused report would have disclosed no cause of action against Reynolds.

Higgins was paid $2.4 million by the federal government in December 2022 for lost earnings, medical expenses and legal fees over allegations she was raped by colleague Bruce Lehrmann in Reynolds’ parliamentary office on March 23, 2019 and the matter was mishandled.

Lehrmann has maintained his innocence since his 2022 criminal trial was aborted, but the Federal Court found the rape allegation to be true on the balance of probabilities in a separate action Lehrmann is now appealing.

According to her evidence, Reynolds took issue with being effectively “muzzled” after the Attorney-General took over the defence of the case, prompting her to leak confidential information to the media and voice her intention to take the matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Bennett argued the reports unearthed overnight were relevant because they addressed whether Reynolds had a legitimate basis to be concerned about the conduct of the civil claim and refer it to the watchdog.

But Higgins’ barrister Rachael Young, SC, fought the move, arguing Reynolds could not use information obtained overnight to justify actions she took more than one year ago and that both reports reached the same conclusion.

Justice Paul Tottle rejected the application, ruling that the matter was “too remote” from the issues central to the case.

Tottle was quick to clarify that there could be no suggestion made of any impropriety on the part of the doctor or the solicitors who called for the report, pointing out there could be “perfectly sensible explanations” for what occurred.

Bennett has now requested permission to forward the documents to NACC.

The former defence minister is suing Higgins for damages, as well as aggravated damages, over a series of social media posts she claims accused her of mishandling the former staffer’s alleged rape and silencing victims of sexual assault.

Higgins is defending the action, claiming the substance of the posts was true, and that Reynolds is using the media to harass her.

Earlier, Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner Leanne Close told of her shock after discovering she was “in the middle of a potential crime scene” midway through a meeting with Reynolds about the alleged rape.

While giving evidence, Close told the court she texted Reynolds to arrange a meeting at her ministerial office on April 4, 2019.

I was thinking ‘we’re sitting in the middle of a potential crime scene that hasn’t been examined’

Leanne Close, AFP

It was there that Close informed Reynolds she and her colleague were there to discuss an alleged sexual assault, which prompted Reynolds to request her chief of staff Fiona Brown join them.

But Close told the court it wasn’t until she was inside the office that she became aware that was where the incident had allegedly occurred.

“Senator Reynolds pointed to the couch and said ‘it happened right there’,” Close told the court.

“I was shocked ... I was thinking ‘we’re sitting in the middle of a potential crime scene that hasn’t been examined’ and I was concerned about the security implications of two staff having sex on a couch in the office, and that they had been intoxicated.

“I didn’t understand how they obtained access and the security implications of that, let alone a young woman being found on that couch.”

While poring over contemporaneous notes that have since become evidence in the defamation trial, Close recalled her concern for Higgins’ welfare as Reynolds told her the former did not wish to report the incident over fears for her job.

And Close told the court she was equally concerned about the fact the office had since been cleaned.

The meeting with the AFP occurred just three days after Reynolds and Brown met with Higgins in the same office regarding what was then being treated as a breach of parliamentary security.

When grilled by Bennett, Close conceded she was unaware at the time that other AFP personnel were aware of the security breach as early as March 28, 2019 and that police had offered Higgins assistance after lodging a complaint on April 1, 2019 she ultimately opted not to pursue.

Close also acknowledged ministerial suites were routinely cleaned, and it was unlikely there would have been anything of real forensic value remaining when the meeting took place.

But her submissions are at odds with Reynolds’ claim she had no idea a sexual assault at occurred.

Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.