The lawyer representing Linda Reynolds has accused Brittany Higgins of taking a designer jacket from her former boss, as a major defamation trial between the pair draws to a close.
Sen. Reynolds’ attorney, Martin Bennett, told the Washington Supreme Court during his closing arguments Wednesday that the senator believed her junior staffer stole her Carla Zampatti jacket.
Mr Bennett said that since the senator believed Ms Higgins had stolen the jacket, Senator Reynolds could not have been harassing his former staffer.
“He probably did it (take the jacket),” Bennett told the court.
Ms Higgins had previously claimed she took the jacket from a goodwill box in the senator’s office after leaving Parliament on the morning of the alleged rape by fellow Liberal MP Bruce Lehrmann.
Mr Bennett said the senator was not harassing Ms Higgins when she gave an interview on Channel 7’s Spotlight programme, and told the court his client could not be criticised for being in a position of safe neutrality when she gave the interview.
At the time, Mr Lehrmann was in the process of launching his own defamation proceedings, Bennett told the court.
Senator Reynolds is suing Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz over social media posts the couple made in 2022 and 2023.
The lawyer representing Linda Reynolds has accused Brittany Higgins (pictured with husband David Sharaz) of stealing a designer jacket from her former boss.
Senator Reynolds’ (pictured) lawyer, Martin Bennett, told the Washington Supreme Court on Wednesday during his closing arguments that the senator believed her junior staffer stole her Carla Zampatti jacket.
The posts criticised Senator Reynolds’ handling of Ms Higgins’ allegation that she was raped in Parliament in 2019 by her then colleague Mr Lehrmann.
He was charged with rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was called off due to jury misconduct.
The charge was dropped and Mr. Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence.
In April this year, Mr Lehrmann lost a civil defamation case when the Federal Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had raped Ms Higgins in Parliament. Mr Lehrmann is appealing that decision.
Mr Bennett told the court it was defamatory for Ms Higgins to say the senator wanted to silence victims of sexual assault.
He said the senator had spoken out about preventing the media from exploiting victims who had filed complaints.
In doing so, the senator highlighted New South Wales legislation that prevents victims of sexual assault from speaking to the media before a criminal matter is processed.
Mr Bennett told the court that no-one had said the NSW legislation was trying to silence victims.
He said it was not a question of silencing victims, but rather that the complaint should be processed through the criminal justice system.
Judge Paul Tottle interrupted the lawyer, saying the effect of the change in law that was the subject of the submission in question would prevent victims from discussing with the media what happened to them.
The judge said the senator’s proposed amendment would make it a new crime to ban a person, which would be close to silence.
Mr. Bennett argued that the senator’s position was to prosecute the perpetrators, not to make it more difficult.
Text messages between Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz illustrate how the couple orchestrated a campaign to damage Senator Reynolds and bring down the Morrison government, a court was told on Wednesday.
Mr Bennett said a text conversation between Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz showed the pair “mocking” the senator for being hospitalised after Ms Higgins went public with her rape allegation.
The senator was hospitalised after collapsing in parliament. She had been subject to intense questioning by Labour senators over Higgins’ allegations.
Messages were read in court showing the couple arguing about the senator taking time off work and speaking to reporters about her.
“Linda has delayed her return to work lol” and “What a mess Linda is up to,” read the messages.
Mr Bennett said the messages “mock the fact that the attack launched against my client has resulted in her being placed on sick leave”.
He said Ms Higgins told news.com.au political editor Samantha Maiden “off the record” that she did not believe the senator should lose her job.
It was widely reported in the media that it was no longer sustainable for Senator Reynolds to retain the Defence Ministry.
“Why off the record?” he asked.
“Didn’t you want Maiden to put out there, let’s say, their sincere and heartfelt belief after the accusations that they made against Reynolds?” Bennett asked.
Ms Higgins has previously stated that she took the jacket from a goodwill box in the senator’s office after leaving Parliament on the morning of the alleged rape by fellow Liberal MP Bruce Lehrmann.
Senator Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, told the Western Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday that because the senator believed Ms Higgins had stolen the jacket, Senator Reynolds could not have been harassing her former staffer.
Further text messages between the pair revealed Ms Higgins wiped her phone before reopening her complaint about the alleged rape to the Australian Federal Police.
Mr. Bennett said the defense’s allegation that Senator Reynolds engaged in questionable conduct during the Lehrmann criminal trial centered on the conduct of the senator’s partner, Robert Reid.
He said there was no room for serious questioning because the senator’s partner attended the criminal trial every day and wanted to know what was being said in court.
Senator Reynolds was a witness at the trial and was working in Rwanda when criminal proceedings against Mr Lehrmann began in the ACT Magistrates Court.
During the criminal trial, Senator Reynolds texted Lehrmann’s attorney, Steve Whybrow, asking if daily court transcripts could be sent to her attorney.
Mr Bennett argued that it was reasonable for his client to be interested in the criminal trial because she had been slandered over the past 18 months and was being sued by Ms Higgins in another matter.
Mr. Bennett said it was relevant to what was being said in the criminal trial for the civil trial, but she did not ask for the transcript herself, she asked for the transcript to be sent to her attorney.
Senator Linda Reynolds (right) was hospitalized after collapsing in parliament
Mr Bennett added that when Mr Reid was seen talking to Mr Whybrow outside court during the criminal trial, it could have been about anything.
He said that does not mean the senator had engaged in questionable conduct.
Mr Bennett told the court that Ms Higgins’ testimony during her Commonwealth personal injury claim was a complete fiction.
She said that when asked if she had sought counselling and been offered support in the wake of her allegations, her answers were flawed.
“The only thing he got right was when federal elections were called,” he said.
‘All paragraphs of these details are wrong.’
Senator Reynolds was excluded from the mediation proceedings when a $2.4 million settlement was reached between Ms Higgins and the Commonwealth, the court was told.
The senator has maintained that she was never given the opportunity to defend any of the allegations made against her during the settlement.
She believed the Commonwealth had engaged in a level of corruption surrounding the payment of compensation.
The senator informed the National Anti-Corruption Committee of the agreement so that it can investigate the circumstances surrounding it.
Mr. Bennett argued that the senator had a right to provide reporters with a letter she received about the settlement that was marked confidential and privileged.
He told the court that not a single sentence in the letter constituted an iota of legal privilege or referred to Ms Higgins.
He said this was not harassment of Ms Higgins, but the senator was concerned about the Commonwealth’s conduct and how the agreement was reached.
Mr Bennett said the concept of a 24-hour news cycle was just a fallacy of thinking for people who lived their lives on the Internet or the phone.
He said a social media post created by Ms Higgins mixed facts with opinion, arguing that this distorted the analysis of the opinion when the underlying facts were wrong.
Mr Bennett said the matter distorted the truth and there was no public interest in misinformation.
“The obligation to act reasonably cannot be ignored,” he said.
