Linda Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins: Senator denies trying to play down full knowledge of rape complaint

Senator Linda Reynolds has broken down uncontrollably after being challenged about a claim that she was warned about a Labor plan to ruin her over the Brittany Higgins affair.

In dramatic and emotional scenes in WA’s Supreme Court, the WA Senator fled the court in tears after being quizzed about her interactions with Senator Kimberley Kitching in 2021.

In earlier evidence, Senator Reynolds recounted a conversation with her opponent in the Senate, when the Labor member told her she knew about an incident involving a young woman in her office — and so did her party colleagues

In court, Ms Reynolds said Senator Kitching warned her that Labor were about to “rain hell” on her — and then made a connection between that disclosure and the Senator’s death from a heart attack months later.

Quizzed about her revelation on Friday, Ms Reynolds became increasingly emotional, insisting the disclosure had happened, despite Senator Kitching later denying it.

The senator revealed she had told other Labor senator’s what Senator Kitching had told her.

And she then went further, as her sobs became louder.

“It displays my guilt ... if I hadn’t revealed their confidence to me — to Senator Wong and Senator Gallagher — that’s when she got angry with me, and that’s when she was furious with me,” Senator Reynolds said.

“I didn’t say it publicly, I said it privately. She was so angry with me, and she was losing weight, she was getting angrier.

“I believe what I said to them caused them to bully her to death – I carry a great deal of guilt.”

Ultimately, she was asked whether her “contempt” for Labor meant that any evidence she gave about them could not be impartial.

Senator Reynolds agreed she couldn’t be, having said earlier “I would no more have gone to any of those senators for anything than poke my eye out with a hot poker.”

After returning to the witness box, Ms Reynolds was asked whether that impartiality stretched to Ms Higgins.

“You now seek to denigrate her as someone that was out to get you in 2021,” Ms Young suggested.

“You now seek to say she is someone that tried to bring you down ... and to ruin you. You are effectively assigning then malice towards you, aren’t you at that time.”

Ms Reynolds denied that.

“I thoroughly reject that, because I absolutely remember the (election) campaign and her engagement, and there was certainly no malice then. But the malice became clear,” she said.

In earlier evidence, Ms Reynolds also denied she was ever told by a senior police officer that Brittany Higgins may have been drugged on the night she said she was raped by her former colleague Bruce Lehrmann.

As her days-long grilling over her defamation claim against Ms Higgins continued on Friday, Ms Reynolds was quizzed about what she knew in March and April 2019, her treatment of her former staffer then, and the evidence she has given about her since.

And under that questioning refused to accept she must have known or suspected the 24 year-old had been raped in her office before she met her there days later.

She denied trying to play down her full knowledge of what happened in her office in 2019.

And she also flatly rebuffed a suggestion that in a later meeting with AFP assistant commissioner Leanne Close, she was told she may have been drugged.

“I don’t recall Assistant Commissioner Close saying that … But even if I had recalled her saying that this was now an AFP criminal investigation,” she said.

“I did not believe in any way it was my role to take part and ask questions that were rightly criminal justice questions.”

Asked about how she felt she had treated Ms Higgins in 2019, Ms Reynolds repeatedly insisted she was not her counsellor.

“I did have general chats to her, but didn’t I think it was appropriate for me to provide counseling support,” Ms Reynolds said.

“I didn’t seek to be her counsellor, but I kept an eye out.”

The Senator said that included while Ms Higgins was in Perth on the campaign trail in the weeks after she had been raped – even though she didn’t personally check in with her.

“It would be highly irregular – I have never heard of an MP going to check on their staff in their accommodation,” Ms Reynolds said.

“But I did see her very regularly on the campaign trail. It was an incredibly busy time.”

And she has also defended how she treated Ms Higgins during her one and only meeting with her following that reported rape — a meeting held in the same room as that alleged assault.

As her fifth day of evidence in her defamation claim against Ms Higgins, the WA Senator was taken back almost two years when she sat in another Supreme Court witness box in Canberra.

That was to give evidence to the jury deciding the criminal charge of rape against Mr Lehrmann.

And Ms Higgins’ lawyer Rachael Young dissected that evidence, including testimony from the MP that she did not know about security guards discovering the junior staffer, nor about her office being cleaned in the hours afterwards.

That was what the Senator told the jury.

But Ms Young put it to her that was wrong, because days after the reported security breach at her office she was shown and read a report by the Department of Parliamentary Services.

That report referenced a female security guard having “observed the female passholder on the lounge undressed”, and how “a senior APH cleaner attended suite M1-23 and cleaned the Minister’s Office”.

“Were you trying to diminish the level of your knowledge by not admitting that you knew security guards had been involved in the incident,” Ms Young asked.

“No, not at all. I was being honest about what I recollected,” Ms Reynolds replied.

“There was extensive discussion about how … I’d had my office staff cleaned.

“I didn’t technically get it quite right in there. But again, I was relying on my memory of two years ago.”

She was also asked about other evidence given at the criminal trial that at the time she met Ms Higgins, she did not know she had already alleged she had awoken with Mr Lehrmann – on top of her.

Contemporaneous notes from her former Chief of Staff Fiona Brown showed the Senator had been told that days before, along with Ms Higgins was very drunk and that she wanted to see a doctor.

You shut her down, didn’t you.

“You were old enough and experienced enough … that raised a suspicion for you that there was sexual activity,” Ms Young suggested.

“Did all of those factors not culminate in your mind to some thought or suspicion that Ms Higgins, might have been raped on the 23rd of March, 2019?”

Ms Reynolds insisted that nothing in the report “to say that any of the guards had any concern that a crime had taken place.”

She was also asked as to why she suggested Ms Higgins’ father should attend the meeting in her office on April 1, if it was merely to discuss the security breach.

“You believed that sexual activity without consent had occurred in your office on the early hours of March 23, 2019,” Ms Young said.

“That is not correct,” Ms Reynolds said.

“It was one of several (options) on our minds ... you don’t jump to conclusions.”

Grilled about that meeting with Ms Higgins further, Ms Reynolds was asked what she discussed with Ms Higgins then.

“Did you ever say to Ms Higgins: ‘if you feel comfortable, tell me everything that you remember’? Did you say to Miss Higgins: ‘Do you suspect that some touching contact happened without your consent?’

“You shut her down, didn’t you.”

Ms Reynolds replied that Ms Higgins had told her she could not remember much of what happened — which is when she told her she was not the person to be having the discussion with.

“I would still do the same thing today. If I had a young staff member who couldn’t remember and who was in distress I would refer them to a counsellor,” Ms Reynolds said.

And she also denied saying to Ms Higgins: “I didn’t think he was capable of something like this” or “This is something that women go through”.

The former defence minister is suing Ms Higgins for defamation over a series of social media posts containing alleged mistruths that she believes have damaged her reputation.

The ongoing trial continued in the wake of yet another revelation — that Mr Lehrmann and a friend were the subject of search warrants by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Media reports on Friday revealed that NACC had raided the homes of Lehrmann and his former media adviser, John Macgowan, investigating allegations the pair shared top-secret submarine contracts.

The warrant reportedly stated the “Commonwealth had reasonable grounds for suspecting it could reveal evidence of two charges of abuse of public office and two charges of complicity and common purpose”.

“Between March and April 2019 at Canberra … Bruce Emery Lehrmann, being a Commonwealth public official, engaged in conduct as a Commonwealth public official and did so with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or another person John Alex Macgowan,” the warrant reportedly said.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Zali Burrows confirmed to media that Mr Lehrmann’s home had been raided by the on June 5.

“The NACC’s conspiracy theory about secret French submarines and spy games is just another wild character assassination attempt against Bruce,” she said.

“They found nothing in the raid and it ended up simply being just a cosy night in with the officers and Bruce. The NACC bought a round of pizzas as they sat by the fireplace watching the State of Origin.”

In Perth to spruik his early childcare funding boost, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was asked about the ongoing trial — and firmly refused to comment.

“The last thing that I’m about to do is comment on something that is before the court. I have no intention of engaging something that is before the court,” he said.

“People will make their own judgment on those issues, and I certainly have mine .

“But I have no intention of commenting on things that are before the court. That would be entirely inappropriate.”

In evidence on Thursday, Ms Reynolds firmly denied trying to help accused rapist Bruce Lehrmann during his criminal trial as her defamation stoush with Brittany Higgins continues.

Under questioning by the former staffer’s lawyer Rachael Young, questioned the senator about a series of text messages sent between her and Mr Lehermann’s lawyer during the rape trial in October 2022.

In one, the lawyer said” “Hope you travelling okay. Hang in there. Karma comes to those who wait”.

Asked about it, the retiring senator said it was a logical conclusion the lawyer was referring to Ms Higgins receiving an unfavourable outcome in the trial.

Senator Reynolds also denied the 21 messages between her and the lawyer were a bid to help Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer discredit Ms Higgins at the rape trial.

“I did nothing to help Bruce Lehrmann ... I did not hold him in high opinion, which is why I sacked him ... so I was in no way seeking to assist his defence,” she said.

Senator Reynolds agreed she wanted to follow the rape trial because it related to the allegations Ms Higgins had put against her and she requested the lawyer send her transcripts - to which he replied it wasn’t appropriate.

The court heard the lawyer said it was for the senator’s protection given she was scheduled to give evidence at the trial.

Senator Reynolds denied she wanted the transcripts so she could help Mr Lehrmann challenge Ms Higgins’ credibility.

The court heard the senator also sent Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer photos of Ms Higgins walking into the court to give evidence at the trial.

“I probably shouldn’t have sent them ... I was a bit catty,” she said.

“She had stolen my jacket and ... What personally annoyed me was how I perceived it as imitating Kate Middleton ... I’m not saying it makes great rational sense,” she said.

“Did you ever stop to think Ms Higgins was trying to cover herself up when she left Parliament House (after her alleged rape)?” Ms Young asked.

“I have absolutely, if she’d returned (the jacket) I would have said ‘no problem’ ... but I never got it back,” the senator said.

With AAP