Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[campbell]

In commencing her summation of her client's defence, Brittany Higgins’ lawyer has branded Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation case a dogged pursuit to besmirch those she blames for her political demise, including the rape victim at the centre of the scandal that preceded it.

With the benefit of 16 days’ worth of evidence in the trial, Rachael Young, SC, told the court it was clear Reynolds was using several social media posts Higgins published in July 2023 as a “side wind” to claim damages.

“And in that process, besmirch those who she blames for her political demise,” Young, SC, said.

The barrister launched a blistering attack on elements of Reynolds’ testimony, accusing the senator of playing the role of advocate rather than witness in evidence she said was at times “problematic” and “self-serving”.

Higgins defence of Reynolds' defamation action against a handful of social media posts is based on the claim that the substance of the posts was true, and that it was Reynolds who used the media to wage a campaign of harassment against her.

Young, SC, said that harassment began with calling Higgins a “lying cow” within earshot of staff during a broadcast of the interview, a remark later disseminated to the media, and texting with Lehrmann’s lawyer.

It also included the leaking of confidential documents concerning Higgins’ $2.4 million personal injury settlement with the federal government to The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen over concerns she was being “muzzled”.

The defence argued against claims Reynolds took a position of “neutrality” in Lehrmann’s sit-down interview with Seven’s Spotlight, accusing her of denouncing Higgins and challenging the veracity of her rape claim.

Young, SC, also questioned Reynolds’ account of when she came to find out about the alleged sexual assault, branding claims she did not know before hosting a meeting with Higgins her 30 square metre office just metres from the couch on which the alleged rape occurred “implausible”.

Young, SC, took aim at the conspiracy claim that is a core component of Reynolds' action, insisting the questioning Reynolds faced when the allegations became public were what ought to have been expected by a Commonwealth senator and the claim was statute-barred.

Ultimately, Higgins’ lawyer argued the court should award minimal damages, if any, in the case, insisting it would be irrational to compensate the senator for distress and health issues that occurred two years before publication of the social media posts in question.

The trial will close on Wednesday after Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett gives his final submissions.

‘Besmirching those she blames for political demise’: Higgins’ lawyer attacks Reynolds

Brittany Higgins’ lawyer has branded former defence minister Linda Reynolds’ defamation action as having the lowest of motives, and attacked the reliability of her testimony.

www.theage.com.au

Well said.......

 

[Festerz]

Well said.......

Agree. The word 'besmirch' doesn't get enough airtime.

 

[Kurve]

In commencing her summation of her client's defence, Brittany Higgins’ lawyer has branded Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds’ defamation case a dogged pursuit to besmirch those she blames for her political demise, including the rape victim at the centre of the scandal that preceded it.

With the benefit of 16 days’ worth of evidence in the trial, Rachael Young, SC, told the court it was clear Reynolds was using several social media posts Higgins published in July 2023 as a “side wind” to claim damages.

“And in that process, besmirch those who she blames for her political demise,” Young, SC, said.

The barrister launched a blistering attack on elements of Reynolds’ testimony, accusing the senator of playing the role of advocate rather than witness in evidence she said was at times “problematic” and “self-serving”.

Higgins defence of Reynolds' defamation action against a handful of social media posts is based on the claim that the substance of the posts was true, and that it was Reynolds who used the media to wage a campaign of harassment against her.

Young, SC, said that harassment began with calling Higgins a “lying cow” within earshot of staff during a broadcast of the interview, a remark later disseminated to the media, and texting with Lehrmann’s lawyer.

It also included the leaking of confidential documents concerning Higgins’ $2.4 million personal injury settlement with the federal government to The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen over concerns she was being “muzzled”.

The defence argued against claims Reynolds took a position of “neutrality” in Lehrmann’s sit-down interview with Seven’s Spotlight, accusing her of denouncing Higgins and challenging the veracity of her rape claim.

Young, SC, also questioned Reynolds’ account of when she came to find out about the alleged sexual assault, branding claims she did not know before hosting a meeting with Higgins her 30 square metre office just metres from the couch on which the alleged rape occurred “implausible”.

Young, SC, took aim at the conspiracy claim that is a core component of Reynolds' action, insisting the questioning Reynolds faced when the allegations became public were what ought to have been expected by a Commonwealth senator and the claim was statute-barred.

Ultimately, Higgins’ lawyer argued the court should award minimal damages, if any, in the case, insisting it would be irrational to compensate the senator for distress and health issues that occurred two years before publication of the social media posts in question.

The trial will close on Wednesday after Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett gives his final submissions.

‘Besmirching those she blames for political demise’: Higgins’ lawyer attacks Reynolds

Brittany Higgins’ lawyer has branded former defence minister Linda Reynolds’ defamation action as having the lowest of motives, and attacked the reliability of her testimony.

www.theage.com.au

Remember how mad Reynolds was with Drumgold for the suggestion of inappropriate behaviour through the criminal trial, Reynolds response to this will be apopleptic.

 

[BFew]

Remember how mad Reynolds was with Drumgold for the suggestion of inappropriate behaviour through the criminal trial, Reynolds response to this will be apopleptic.

Wouldn't be surprised if Reynolds just drops the case now on personal health grounds, blames it on Higgins defence lawyer, and tests out some obscure WA loophole in the laws that permits her to attempt to sue a defence lawyer for something during a civil court case, and/or apply for an AVO against the defence lawyer for harassment.

 

[Festerz]

Wouldn't be surprised if Reynolds just drops the case now on personal health grounds,

I would be very surprised.

Senator Linda Reynolds - who has devoted the last five years of her taxpayer funded career in a vindictive five year highly publicised search for vengeful retribution against the rape survivor she blames for derailing her career - prepared to walk away from her multi-million dollar investment as a sunk cost?

Senator Linda Reynolds - the perpetual leaker of personal and confidential information to the media - prepared to walk away because she finally understands that it's HER actions and statements that have made her a public pariah?

Senator Linda Reynolds finally gaining a sense of self awareness? Finally gaining an understanding that SHE isn't the real victim here? That the real victim is her younger and naive employee who was r*ped in HER office in Parliament House by another one of her employees and who has been through the trauma of reliving that experience in a very public way and is still to get justice? That threatening to financially ruin that rape survivor for a couple of social media posts that very few have seen let alone remember is the epitome of selfishness?

Nah - that will never happen.

And a reminder that Senator Reynolds has already most likely won her action against one of the defendants- David Sharaz - who has chosen not to contest the allegations for financial reasons. But that she remains in the box seat to win at least one part of her defamation action against Ms Higgins under WA's defamation laws.

Reynolds' has also been successful in every one of her previous litigation actions related to the rape allegation - including receiving $90,000 in March this year for "damage, distress and embarrassment" caused by comments made by ACT Prosecutor Shane Drumgold during Bruce Lehrmann's rape trial and an undisclosed sum from journalist Aaron Patrick for comments made in a book that remains on sale (go figure). But all of those previous wins came from settlements agreed before the matter progressed to court, which is where this one against Ms Higgins differs.

And a reminder that tomorrow we will hear the summation from Reynolds' lawyer, who will no doubt attack Ms Higgins with a furious gusto that will make everything heard thus seem like a fairy themed child's birthday party. This will be the culmination of the years of hatred and blame built up by Reynolds for Ms Higgins. And it will get front page billing from Reynolds' bestie Janet Albrechtsen in both the Friday and weekend editions of the Australian newspaper and copied as front page news in The Daily Mail and the Murdoch dailies.

Senator Reynolds wouldn't miss that final coup de grace at publicly disgracing and humiliating her former staffer for anything. She will be very confident of yet another satisfying pay day to top things off when the judge's verdict on damages from this latest round of litigation finally comes in.

And regardless of the outcome Reynolds has yet another round of litigation, this time relating to the Higgins damages settlement, already in play.

Senator Reynolds is still on the public payroll but has most likely spent more time in lawyers offices and court rooms than in her Ministerial office of Parliament this year. Her lawyer Martin Bennett, found guilty of two counts of professional misconduct and one count of unsatisfactory conduct earlier this year, is surely on an exclusive retainer with Reynolds by now?

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds' has also been successful in every one of her previous litigation actions related to the rape allegation - including receiving $90,000 in March this year for "damage, distress and embarrassment" caused by comments made by ACT Prosecutor Shane Drumgold during Bruce Lehrmann's rape trial and an undisclosed sum from journalist Aaron Patrick for comments made in a book that remains on sale (go figure). But all of those previous wins came from settlements agreed before the matter progressed to court, which is where this one against Ms Higgins differs.

Reynolds has been emboldened by what she frames as her success in settling defamation actions to her satisfaction. Five or six so far?

Most of us know that what she did through the criminal trial was inappropriate, Rachel Young frames it perfectly. Can she sue Rachel Young for saying what reasonable people are thinking?

Ms Reynolds was also then taken to task for her behaviour during the Lehrmann trial in the ACT Supreme Court, which eventually saw his charges dropped for juror misconduct.

Evidence revealed 21 messages she had sent to Mr Whybrow, ranging from a request for the transcript of the trial to a comparison of Ms Higgins’ outfit to one once worn by Kate Middleton.

“The Senator’s texts can be only sensibly described as attempting to assist the accused.

“What this whole chain identifies ... is the Senator’s position of neutrality is one that ought be rejected. She was clearly in our submission, assisting or attempting to assist.

“There’s no comparable communications with the prosecution.”

Texts show Reynolds ‘tried to help Lehrmann's rape defence’

A string of messages between Linda Reynolds and the lawyer who represented Bruce Lehrmann on a charge of rape showed that she was trying to help his defence, according to the legal team for Brittany Higgins.

thewest.com.au

 

[Kurve]

If this judge takes in to consideration Young's submissions and finds them reasonable with regards Reynolds attempting to help the defence in the criminal trial, should the ACT government then sue Reynolds to get their money back?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If this judge takes in to consideration Young's submissions and finds them reasonable with regards Reynolds attempting to help the defence in the criminal trial, should the ACT government then sue Reynolds to get their money back?

You should sue Reynolds for sicking her bots onto BigFooty Crime Board.

 

[campbell]

I would be very surprised.

Senator Linda Reynolds - who has devoted the last five years of her taxpayer funded career in a vindictive five year highly publicised search for vengeful retribution against the rape survivor she blames for derailing her career - prepared to walk away from her multi-million dollar investment as a sunk cost?

Senator Linda Reynolds - the perpetual leaker of personal and confidential information to the media - prepared to walk away because she finally understands that it's HER actions and statements that have made her a public pariah?

Senator Linda Reynolds finally gaining a sense of self awareness? Finally gaining an understanding that SHE isn't the real victim here? That the real victim is her younger and naive employee who was r*ped in HER office in Parliament House by another one of her employees and who has been through the trauma of reliving that experience in a very public way and is still to get justice? That threatening to financially ruin that rape survivor for a couple of social media posts that very few have seen let alone remember is the epitome of selfishness?

Nah - that will never happen.

And a reminder that Senator Reynolds has already most likely won her action against one of the defendants- David Sharaz - who has chosen not to contest the allegations for financial reasons. But that she remains in the box seat to win at least one part of her defamation action against Ms Higgins under WA's defamation laws.

Reynolds' has also been successful in every one of her previous litigation actions related to the rape allegation - including receiving $90,000 in March this year for "damage, distress and embarrassment" caused by comments made by ACT Prosecutor Shane Drumgold during Bruce Lehrmann's rape trial and an undisclosed sum from journalist Aaron Patrick for comments made in a book that remains on sale (go figure). But all of those previous wins came from settlements agreed before the matter progressed to court, which is where this one against Ms Higgins differs.

And a reminder that tomorrow we will hear the summation from Reynolds' lawyer, who will no doubt attack Ms Higgins with a furious gusto that will make everything heard thus seem like a fairy themed child's birthday party. This will be the culmination of the years of hatred and blame built up by Reynolds for Ms Higgins. And it will get front page billing from Reynolds' bestie Janet Albrechtsen in both the Friday and weekend editions of the Australian newspaper and copied as front page news in The Daily Mail and the Murdoch dailies.

Senator Reynolds wouldn't miss that final coup de grace at publicly disgracing and humiliating her former staffer for anything. She will be very confident of yet another satisfying pay day to top things off when the judge's verdict on damages from this latest round of litigation finally comes in.

And regardless of the outcome Reynolds has yet another round of litigation, this time relating to the Higgins damages settlement, already in play.

Senator Reynolds is still on the public payroll but has most likely spent more time in lawyers offices and court rooms than in her Ministerial office of Parliament this year. Her lawyer Martin Bennett, found guilty of two counts of professional misconduct and one count of unsatisfactory conduct earlier this year, is surely on an exclusive retainer with Reynolds by now?

Her pathology will not allow her to withdraw.

 

[Festerz]

If this judge takes in to consideration Young's submissions and finds them reasonable with regards Reynolds attempting to help the defence in the criminal trial, should the ACT government then sue Reynolds to get their money back?

Sadly no. By settling and issuing an official public apology to her the ACT Government has accepted the claims of Senator Reynolds (just as the ABC and news.com.au won't get their money back for having settled with Lehrmann for his defamation claim despite the findings of Justice Lee in the subsequent defamation trial).

Unless of course new information has been revealed that makes Reynolds specific claims about having been defamed by Mr Drumgold patently and knowingly untrue at the time.

 

[Festerz]

Her pathology will not allow her to withdraw.

Yep. I think Senator Reynolds believes that she is 100% in the right and every one of her actions have been fully justified.

Edit: And as predicted, front row seats for Senator Reynolds for the public flogging to be dished out by her lawyer this morning, who opened his submissions by suggesting Ms Higgins was a coward who was 'arrogantly' hiding in France.

“Ms Higgins arrogantly — from the sanctity of France — claims the status of the person most seriously affected by this matter and trivialises the hurt to others,” Martin Bennett said.

‘Underpinned by visceral hatred’: Higgins, Reynolds’ lawyers in tug-of-war over ‘conspiracy’ claim

Linda Reynolds made a shock appearance just before 11am, sitting in the front row of the public gallery before her lawyer lambasted Brittany Higgins for “trivialising” his client’s suffering following the political firestorm.

www.theage.com.au

 

[campbell]

Yep. I think Senator Reynolds believes that she is 100% in the right and every one of her actions have been fully justified.

Edit: And as predicted, front row seats for Senator Reynolds for the public flogging to be dished out by her lawyer this morning, who opened his submissions by suggesting Ms Higgins was a coward who was 'arrogantly' hiding in France.

“Ms Higgins arrogantly — from the sanctity of France — claims the status of the person most seriously affected by this matter and trivialises the hurt to others,” Martin Bennett said.

‘Underpinned by visceral hatred’: Higgins, Reynolds’ lawyers in tug-of-war over ‘conspiracy’ claim

Linda Reynolds made a shock appearance just before 11am, sitting in the front row of the public gallery before her lawyer lambasted Brittany Higgins for “trivialising” his client’s suffering following the political firestorm.

www.theage.com.au

oh wow.

LRs pathololgy is eeriely similar to another high profile person overseas.

 

[Kurve]

Does anybody know how long The Project interview with Wilkinson was available to view for before it was pulled?

Sarah Basford Canales
Reynolds’ lawyer continues closing arguments in defamation case

Martin Bennett, Linda Reynolds’ lawyer, is now turning to the two months after Brittany Higgins’ alleged rape, which she spent campaigning in Perth for the federal election.

Bennett said there were three elements he would focus on; was Higgins forced to go to Perth to keep her job? What was her involvement in activities in Perth? and what happened after the Morrison government was re-elected?

Bennett said Higgins’ claims about the above points in the televised interview on The Project in February 2021 were all “false” because it “wasn’t part of the narrative she wanted to falsely portray”.

The court is shown text messages between Higgins and her former boyfriend, Ben Dillaway, where Higgins describes her time in Perth as a “workcation”.

On Monday, the court was shown other messages between Higgins and Dillaway during that period, where the former staffer outlined her distress.

Higgins wrote she was “beyond shitty” with how her boss, Reynolds, was dealing with the alleged sexual assault, adding: “I was literally assaulted in [Reynolds’] office and I collectively maybe took 4 days off/was offered jack shit in terms of help.”

The court has adjourned for lunch and will return at 2.15pm Perth time.

Via The Guardian Live.

 

[GrayRanga]

Her pathology will not allow her to withdraw.

Bit like Lehrmann?

 

[Kurve]

This goes towards there being no plan or conspiracy to bring down the LNP government, since Peta Credlin was also contacted.

Sarah Basford Canales
Peta Credlin’s involvement in media statement raised in defamation case

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, is responding to the defence’s use of a statement Brittany Higgins provided to the media in 2021.

Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, finished off her closing arguments, saying the trial had heard a lot about the word “agency”.

Young read out Higgins’ statement on Tuesday morning:

The prime minister has repeatedly told the parliament that I should be given ‘agency’ going forward. I don’t believe that agency was provided to me over the past two years but I seize it now. I was failed repeatedly, but I now have my voice, and I am determined to use [it] to ensure that this is never allowed to happen to another member of staff again.

Bennett said the words in the statement weren’t crafted by Higgins alone - they were drafted with the help of Sky News columnist, Peta Credlin.

The court was shown an email thread between Higgins, her partner David Sharaz and Credlin.

On February 19 2021, Higgins wrote to Credlin: “Hi Peta, Thank-you again for your help. Please see below the initial draft - feel free to completely rework wherever you see fit.”

Credlin responded with some suggestions and another exhibit showed a final version of the statement was texted to Higgins by Sharaz. Bennett said the correspondence demonstrated the level of media planning Higgins engaged in following the publication of her rape allegations.

Young responded it was usual for media statements to go through a series of drafts and that it didn’t “detract” from Higgins’ words.

The emails and text messages will be admitted into evidence.

Via The Guardian Live.

 

[campbell]

Bit like Lehrmann?

um, think overseas.......

 

[Underarrest_]

Is it just me, or is there no comprehension of ‘disassociation,’ and how a person might act/behave following a traumatic event such as rape?

Mr Bennett also said Ms Higgins's account of her time in Perth in the weeks after she was r*ped, in which she told journalists she was isolated in a Perth hotel room and shunned by Senator Reynolds, could not be believed.

He said numerous text messages from Ms Higgins to her then boyfriend Ben Dillaway showed she was having a great time in Perth, attending campaign events, drinking at local pubs and attending an "awesome" birthday dinner for Senator Reynolds at an upmarket hotel.

Ms Young said Ms Higgins appearing happy in photographs and at campaign events did not mean she was not suffering, but Mr Bennett rubbished that claim.

"This is some woman who's meant to be trauma-affected and [hiding her] tears behind the smile," he said, showing the court texts in which she spoke of enjoying her time in Perth and describing it as a "work-cation".

Claiming she was actually traumatised and isolated was a "preposterous misstatement of the position by Miss Higgins," Mr Bennett said.

Linda Reynolds's lawyer attacks 'arrogant' Brittany Higgins for trivialising senator's hurt from the 'sanctity of France'

Senator Linda Reynolds's lawyer tries to eviscerate Brittany Higgins's defamation defence by painting her as a deliberate liar who tried to ruin her former boss's career and bring down the Morrison government.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Festerz]

Is it just me, or is there no comprehension of ‘disassociation,’ and how a person might act/behave following a traumatic event such as rape?

It's not just you. But sadly our civil court processes are poorly equipped to deal with and/or take account of the effects and responses to personal trauma resulting from sexual and domestic violence. The sort of personal trauma that might lead to a person who was r*ped in her place of work taking aim at her employer for failing to provide the level of support that she would expect.

As proof of this look no further than the first parts of Linda Reynolds' lawyer, Martin Bennett's, closing statement in the WA Supreme Court where he does a bit of back of the envelope trauma accounting for the benefit of the Court.

“Ms Higgins arrogantly — from the sanctity of France — claims the status of the person most seriously affected by this matter and trivialises the hurt to others,”

Take the time to read that again.

It's serving Federal Liberal Senator, and former Minister, Reynolds openly claiming that a young victim of a rape committed after hours in her place of work is not the person most seriously affected by that rape. And furthermore that rape victim is arrogant to suggest that she is (the most affected victim).

No, the person 'most seriously affected' by this heinous crime is not the victim of rape but that victim's boss who was named in a couple of subsequent social media posts.

Martin Bennett is a lawyer with over 40 years court experience. He is using this line of attack because he understands WA defamation laws and how they fail to take account of rape trauma.

 

[Underarrest_]

It's not just you. But sadly our civil court processes are poorly equipped to deal with and/or take account of the effects and responses to personal trauma resulting from sexual and domestic violence. The sort of personal trauma that might lead to a person who was r*ped in her place of work taking aim at her employer for failing to provide the level of support that she would expect.

As proof of this look no further than the first parts of Linda Reynolds' lawyer, Martin Bennett's, closing statement in the WA Supreme Court where he does a bit of back of the envelope trauma accounting for the benefit of the Court.

“Ms Higgins arrogantly — from the sanctity of France — claims the status of the person most seriously affected by this matter and trivialises the hurt to others,”

Take the time to read that again.

It's serving Federal Liberal Senator, and former Minister, Reynolds openly claiming that a young victim of a rape committed after hours in her place of work is not the person most seriously affected by that rape. And furthermore that rape victim is arrogant to suggest that she is (the most affected victim).

No, the person 'most seriously affected' by this heinous crime is not the victim of rape but that victim's boss who was named in a couple of subsequent social media posts.

Martin Bennett is a lawyer with over 40 years court experience. He is using this line of attack because he understands WA defamation laws and how they fail to take account of rape trauma.

Understand what you’re saying and it’s quite telling.
If Reynold’s argument was that she did the right thing at the time
with the knowledge she had, (which we know wasn’t adequate,) then surely there would now be more awareness of the impact of the victim, Brittany, both then and now.

 

[jason_recliner]

It's not just you. But sadly our civil court processes are poorly equipped to deal with and/or take account of the effects and responses to personal trauma resulting from sexual and domestic violence. The sort of personal trauma that might lead to a person who was r*ped in her place of work taking aim at her employer for failing to provide the level of support that she would expect.

What the civil court is well quipped for is for antagonists to realise over time the error of their ways, apologise and/or settle, and entirely avoid the court. Higgins, for reasons unfathomable, is unable to apologise to Reynolds (and Brown) for publicly accusing them of things they didn't do, defaming them in doing so, and now it's a multi-million dollar civil court hearing.

 

[Festerz]

Understand what you’re saying and it’s quite telling.
If Reynold’s argument was that she did the right thing at the time
with the knowledge she had, (which we know wasn’t adequate,) that surely there would now be more awareness of the impact of the victim, Brittany, both then and now.

IMHO Reynolds is beyond giving a flying feck about reflection, awareness or understanding now, if she was ever capable of harbouring such emotions.

This is all about revenge and payback, spurred on by those in the media and politics who seek to benefit from the carnage. Not unlike the way Ms Higgins - who is the real victim here - herself probably felt and was used back in 2021 and maybe still is in a way I guess.

But having finally been vindicated in the Lehrmann defamation judgement, Brittany Higgins has taken the high road to find some sort of escape in a new life even though her alleged rapist will never be brought to final justice. It's just so desperately sad that her chosen path out of the media frenzy that resulted has been denied to her by her former employer Senator Linda Reynolds who seems hell bent of financially destroying her.

 

[GrayRanga]

What has happened to our prolific commentator on this thread?

I've been awaiting for the insightful comments in regards to Higgin's and Reynold's Barristers' summaries of the case and the news that Senator Cash cast her (evil) eye over Higgin's media statement

Definately missing the gloating of the couple's house being put on the market

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds announcing her intention to refer Higgins settlement to the corruption watchdog of course, would be perceived as quite threatening to Higgins.

Sarah Basford Canales
Reynolds’ lawyer pointing to number of views Higgins’ social media posts achieved

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, is starting the morning by pointing to the number of views Brittany Higgins’ social media posts achieved.

The Western Australian senator is specifically suing Higgins over three social media posts made in July 2023 she alleges damaged Reynolds’ reputation. However, the five-week trial has dealt with a much-wider time period, dealing with actions and interactions in the weeks before Higgins’ alleged rape in March 2019 up to comments and correspondence as recent as this year.

One of the specific posts Reynolds is suing upon is an Instagram story posted by Higgins and added to her “Advocacy” thread. The post was a screenshot of headlines in July 2023 indicating Reynolds intended to refer Higgins’ $2.445m personal injury settlement to the federal anti-corruption body.
Higgins wrote on the post:

These are just headlines from today. This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament. My former boss who has publicly apologised for mishandling my rape allegation. Who has had to publicly apologise to me after defaming me in the workplace … This has been going on for years now. It is time to stop.

Bennett said the post had “enormous” reach, showing the court screenshots of posts in the story thread had been seen by more than 10,000 social media accounts.

via The Guardian Live

 

[Kurve]

Sarah Basford Canales
Linda Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, is going through each of the defence’s claims in the senator’s case against her former staffer, Brittany Higgins.

In one example, Bennett says Higgins’ recollection about her treatment by the senator following her alleged rape was incorrect.

Earlier evidence from Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, claimed the then 24-year-old staffer had been left isolated in April and May 2019 while campaigning in Perth shortly after the incident.

Higgins told The Project in a 2021 televised interview she was handed a brochure for employee assistance counselling services but there was a “two-month wait” before she could receive support.

Today, Bennett claimed there had been “20 attempts” to offer phone counselling support to Higgins but they were not taken up. The court isn’t shown the documents, which he said appeared in his yet-to-be released closing submissions. Bennett said:

via The Guardian Live

 

[FIGJAM]

What has happened to our prolific commentator on this thread?

Just popped in over lunch for the first time in days. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm busy.

Definately missing the gloating of the couple's house being put on the market

Dunno why you think I'd "gloat" over that! I'm less of a campaigner than you think and have been against this stupid trial from the beginning. All parties will lose out (in every sense!) no matter what the result.