Linda Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins defamation case: Higgins and David Sharaz ‘mocked’ Reynolds, court hears

The judge who will decide the defamation battle between Linda Reynolds and Brittany Higgins has pointedly said it appears to him it was David Sharaz who had the deeper dislike for the Senator — as the five weeks of legal argument drew to a close.

The high-stakes defamation trial pitting the former Defence Minister and her former junior staffer against each other in WA’s Supreme Court will finish on Wednesday after weeks of startling evidence.

Direct evidence which had been scheduled from Ms Higgins did not eventuate, after her lawyers said they would not be calling her, partly because of concerns over her health.

But that has not prevented her words being used for and against her in the legal arguments claiming she used social media posts to attack and defame the outgoing Senator in 2022 and 2023.

In his second day of closing arguments, Ms Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett continued his attack on Ms Higgins, Mr Sharaz and their alleged plan to bring down the Senator and the Morrison government by “weaponsing” her claim of rape.

And he pointed to not only the three social media posts actually sued upon, but the two years before and various posts afterwards — even ones posted during the five weeks of hearing.

Mr Bennett argued that Ms Reynolds had not sued before because she had “stood by her moral principle of don’t derogate in any way from Ms Higgins being able to sue and prosecute (Bruce) Lehrmann for rape.”

But he said once those other proceedings had finished, the posts became too much to bear.

“We’re here because Ms Higgins is wedded to her truth,” Mr Bennett said.

“And the reputation of Senator Reynolds depends on establishing the truth, because if she doesn’t establish the truth … Miss Higgins will forever refer to her truth and continue to defame Senator Reynolds.

“Ms Higgins is not being sued for speaking out about sexual assault. She’s been sued for defaming Senator Reynolds.

“The fact that she was sexually assaulted is accepted by Senator Reynolds, who is deeply sympathetic to the trauma that created.

“But that didn’t give Ms Higgins a license to defame.

“Your Honour should find Ms Higgins grossly defamed Senator Reynolds, and did so perpetuating her plan to inflict hurt and injury.

“To vindicate her reputation, (the Senator) needs to nail the lie that’s been perpetuated since February 2021.”

During his breakdown of messages sent between Ms Higgins and her now husband, Mr Bennett said the pair had “mocked” Ms Reynolds for taking a significant break from Parliament because of health problems.

Judge Paul Tottle pointedly singled out Mr Sharaz, saying he appeared to have the deeper dislike for the Senator.

“One might think … that it is Mr Sharaz who has more of an animus towards the Senator,” he said.

Mr Bennett then revisited Justice Michael Lee’s comparison of Mr Sharaz to the Prophet Elijah: “We set a place for him on the table, but he’s never there.”

In earlier submissions, Mr Bennett doubled down on its attack on Higgins, labelling the former staffer’s version of events as “complete rubbish” and “total fiction”.

Point by point, Mr Bennett said Ms Higgins had been wrong in what she claimed had happened.

“Every paragraph in these particulars is wrong, except for the fact that an election was called,” Mr Bennett said.

On her recall of Yaron Finkelstein — Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s principal private secretary — being in the office to discuss her situation: “complete rubbish, total fiction”.

Her claim of being holed up in a Perth hotel room for days during the 2019 election campaign: “palpably false”.

The senator not inquiring about her welfare: “a mishmash of errors”.

On the senator accusing Ms Higgins of stealing a Carla Zampatti jacket she wore out of Parliament the morning after she said she was raped: “She probably did — that certainly was the view of Senator Reynolds.”

And on the claim that Ms Reynolds had harassed Ms Higgins through calling her a lying cow, press leaks, and media interviews — Mr Bennett also fired back.

“Something that happens in the privacy of one’s own office can’t constitute harassment — even if it’s then leaked to the media and publicised,” he said.

“It’s like a wink in the dark, that doesn’t harass Ms Higgins.”

Mr Bennett also fired back at criticism directed at Ms Reynolds for leaking confidential information to journalist Janet Albrechtsen.

“You teach law students that putting the word legal professional privilege isn’t some semi religious incantation that casts some magical spell over the contents — there’s not a scrap of legal professional privilege in it,” he said.

In pointing to the draft excerpt of Ms Higgins’ book, initially titled ‘#NotJustADaughter’ — Mr Bennett claimed that showed the coordinated nature of the couple’s manoeuvres around Ms Higgins’ going public.

“Here, I’m in the mud with the pigs fighting for control of the daily news cycle, throwing mud. A WhatsApp here, a voicemail there,” she wrote in one passage.

“We had become quite a twosome when it came to game planning. My experience as a media adviser, David’s experience as a producer; together we understood how the gallery media sphere operated,” she recounted in another.

He pointed to documents which he said showed that 20 attempts were made by support services to contact Ms Higgins in the wake of her 2019 revelations.

“So the idea is she wasn’t given additional support ... people were trying to support her even while she was away, but she wouldn’t have a bar of it,” Mr Bennett said.

And referring to one of the actual posts sued on, Mr Bennett said by their reckoning, it would have to be found to be “highly defamatory and highly critical of Senator Reynolds”.

Ms Higgins is fighting her former boss Senator Linda Reynolds over a series of social media posts from 2023 that the ex-defence minister believes damaged her reputation.

On Tuesday, it was revealed in court that Sky News political commentator Peta Credlin helped Ms Higgins draft a statement outlining the former staffer’s plan to reform the way parliament handled sexual harassment.

The senator’s lawyer Martin Bennett told a Perth court a statement purporting to be Ms Higgins’, that her lawyer Rachael Young read during her closing submissions, was not written by her.

“It wasn’t Ms Higgins’ voice at all,” he told the WA Supreme Court on Tuesday in reference to the statement from February 19, 2021.

“The draft ... was prepared by (Ms Higgins’ now-husband David) Sharaz and it was edited by Peta Credlin.”

Mr Bennett read out a series of messages between Mr Sharaz and Ms Credlin in which he said: “Thank you again for your help. Please see below the initial draft, feel free to completely re-work wherever you see fit”.

Mr Bennett said Ms Credlin — former prime minister Tony Abbott’s chief of staff — provided suggestions to rework paragraphs, asking Mr Sharaz to call her so she could talk him through the changes.

He also said Mr Sharaz sent the edited document to journalist Lisa Wilkinson.

“This idea that statements made by Ms Higgins after the date of The Project interview and the (Samantha) Maiden article corroborate her motive in making those statements ... needs to be treated with caution because what appears to be Ms Higgins’ voice was the voice of people jumping on a bandwagon,’ Mr Bennett said.

“But Ms Higgins had no agency when she was raped in March 2019 on the couch in Senator Reynolds’ private office,” she said.

Ms Young read an extract from Ms Higgins’ statement in which she said she had re-engaged with the Australian Federal Police and would proceed with a formal complaint over her alleged rape.

In it, Ms Higgins also said: “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 and have advised the Prime Minister’s Office that I expect a voice in framing the scope and terms of reference for a new and significant review into the conditions for all ministerial and parliamentary staff.

“From the outset, I have been driven by my desire to ensure that no other person would have to go through the trauma that I experienced during my time in Parliament House.

“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.”

with AAP