Linda Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins: Reynolds seeks medical details on day 5 of defamation case

Senator Linda Reynolds has been forced to defend her deletion of texts she shared with the defence lawyer of Bruce Lehrmann during her former staffer’s rape trial — and vehemently denied she was trying to help his case.

Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz are being sued by Senator Reynolds over posts shared in 2022 and 2023 which were critical of Ms Reynolds’ handling of Ms Higgins’ allegation she was raped in Parliament House in 2019 by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann.

He was charged with rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct. The charge was dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence.

In the latest legal spin-off from that allegation, Ms Reynolds has spent the week in WA’s Supreme Court, giving evidence in her trial.

On Wednesday, Senator Reynolds faced off with Brittany Higgins’ defence lawyer Rachel Young, who began cross examining the senator in her blockbuster defamation case in the WA Supreme Court on Wednesday.

And during tense questioning — during which the Senator was twice chastised by Justice Paul Tottle — she was quizzed over communications with barrister Steven Whybrow in October 2022.

The contact between the two had begun months before, including a meeting.

“Sh*t’s about to get real,” Mr Whybrow sent to the Senator in one of those messages.

“Karma comes to those who wait,” he said in another.

When asked whether she took that to mean that a bad judgment was coming to Ms Higgins, Ms Reynolds said: “if it has come from Mr Whybrow that would be a logical conclusion”.

She was then asked about a message she sent to Mr Whybrow on October 6 — three days into the criminal trial, while Ms Higgins was already giving evidence.

In it she asked whether it was possible to get the transcripts of the trial, to be supplied to her lawyer. Mr Whybrow told her that was an inappropriate request of him.

And Ms Young then revealed that these messages were not discovered from Ms Reynolds’ phone at the time – and she asked Ms Reynolds directly whether she had deleted them to avoid them being seen.

“You deleted the text messages because you did not want a record of those communications,” Ms Young said.

“I didn’t try to hide anything,” Ms Reynolds replied. “He clearly told me that what I’d asked was not appropriate. I hadn’t realised it until that time.

Ms Reynolds said it was her practice to delete messages as part of her “cyber hygiene” routine, including manually deleting some messages after seven days, and screen shotting others she believed might have been important.

And she then denied she wanted the transcript so she could “help the accused challenge Ms Higgins’ credit.”

“That is absolutely not correct,” Ms Reynolds said.

“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.”

Grilled about another message she sent to Mr Whybrow later that evening — comparing what Ms Higgins was wearing to court, to an outfit once worn by the Princess of Wales — Ms Reynolds denied she was “mocking” her.

“I was intemperate, I was annoyed,” Ms Reynolds said. “It probably shouldn’t have annoyed me but it did.

“Miss Higgins had made a point of commenting on on her wardrobe — like at the March — wearing white. So she had made it a thing and I just got annoyed.”

Ms Reynolds then said that annoyance stemmed from Ms Higgins having “stolen my jacket” — referring to the Carla Zampatti coat which Ms Higgins wore as she exited Parliament House the morning after she said she was raped.

“If she had returned it, I would have no problem — if she just returned it and said: ‘I put it on because I was cold’ or whatever else then that would have been absolutely fine.

“But I never got it back.”

In earlier evidence, Ms Reynolds again denied she doubted the truth of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation, after being taken to her own words in an interview with the Seven Network, and then quizzed as to whether she was trying to “besmirch” her former staffer publicly.

That included during an interview with the Spotlight programme in 2023, where at one point she was asked about “a crime that may not have been committed”.

In the interview, Ms Reynolds’ immediate answer was “Yes”.

In court, she insisted: “I certainly wasn’t referring to the rape. I certainly did not say to him that I did not believe the allegation of rape.”

Ms Higgins’ barrister Rachael Young then put to the Senator that “words matter”.

“Words matter in a rape allegation that had not been proved in a court of law. And to a rape complainant who was your former employee,” Ms Young said.

“It may have been taken that you were agreeing that the rape may not have been committed.”

And she also pressed her on a comment made just this week, outside court, where the Senator chided AG Mark Dreyfus about not having “reach” into the WA Supreme Court.

“It was seeking to besmirch Ms Higgins by implying that the settlement was improper in some way,” Ms Young said.

Ms Reynolds disagreed.

“My point was the exact opposite. That by taking civil action here in Western Australia, he had no jurisdiction here. And by paying for my own legal fees, he had no jurisdiction here,” she said.

Earlier, it was revealed that lawyers for Ms Reynolds are now seeking intimate medical details from one of Brittany Higgins’ doctors, as the multi-million dollar defamation claim continues.

The cross-examination continued on Thursday, but not before more subpoeanas for documents were fired off by Ms Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett.

One of those were to Saxon Mullins, a sexual assault advocate who has launched a support fundraiser for Ms Higgins, which has now reached more than $40,000.

The other was a request that a Queensland doctor to provide his notes detailing consultations with Ms Higgins, which they say “goes to the issue of the defendants credit”.

“A central aspect is this Commonwealth taking over the conduct of Senator Reynolds’ defense with a civil claim and settling it five days after they assume control of the case,” Mr Bennett said.

“So we want to see what the underlying medical evidence was.”

Ms Young opposed that claim, saying Ms Higgins state of mind was irrelevant.

Justice Paul Tottle said he would rule on the subpoeanas later in the day.

Resuming her cross-examination, Ms Reynolds continued to be quizzed about her leaking of information to journalist Janet Albrechtsen in December 2022.

Ms Young repeatedly put it to Ms Reynolds she chose her because she was likely to give her “favourable” coverage “that offered a viewpoint contrary to Ms. Higgins position.”

Ms Reynolds denied that. And she later denied that she was sending material so Ms Higgins and her now-husband David Sharaz so they would be “denigrated” in the media.

“She is a journalist, I believe, that has a strong sense of legal justice. And she calls it out as she sees it,” Ms Reynolds said..

She was harassing my office on a regular basis and monstering my staff

Asked about consideration sending the material to Samantha Maiden — the journalist who broke the Higgins story — Ms Reynolds alleged that since that story, Ms Maiden had been “monstering” her staff.

“We had to send a legal letter to her ... because she was harassing my office on a regular basis and monstering my staff,” she said.

“We had to write to her to cease and desist ... so I would not have given it to Samantha Maiden, because she had been so horrific to my staff.”

The article, revealing Ms Reynolds had been “muzzled” during the mediation, was published three days later. Ms Reynolds said she was “pleased” when it came out.

But she repeatedly denied that she also knew the article would raise general questions about whether her former junior staffer should have got the $2.4 million — and her “distress would be elevated”.

“I had no indication of what her state of mental health was,” Ms Reynolds stated.

“What was top of my mind was exposing what I believe to be corruption by the Attorney General (Mark Dreyfus).

“I was incredibly angry, because I could see the Attorney General of Australia was stitching me up.”

Ms Reynolds then said a later interview with Ms Albrechtsen, which also featured details of a “secret” legal email, also wasn’t about the settlement with Ms. Higgins.

“It was actually about the truth. And what (that email) clearly demonstrates is that (Fiona) Brown, and I did everything right,” Ms Reynolds said.

“It wasn’t my truth. It was the truth. I had been demonised for things that I did not do. That were not true. So I felt it was time.

“I wanted to do that at the mediation behind closed doors — but I was denied that opportunity. I never wanted to be in this position here today. Having to defend this here. But I was denied that opportunity.”

On Wednesday, Senator Reynolds told the court she refused to apologise to Brittany Higgins about the “lying cow” comment because of the lies that were made about her character.

Senator Reynolds said she was genuinely upset she used those words but uttered them out of anger and frustration.

“It was just something I said to express frustration about what she was saying about Fiona Brown and myself,” she said.

“It represented my frustration.”

The senator denied the cause of her stress was the “lying cow” comment becoming public, but her stress was caused by the accusation she covered up Ms Higgins’ rape allegation.

“There were calls for my resignation in those two weeks, I had been turned into a villain,” she said.

“It was overwhelming.”

Senator Reynolds said she never apologised in a public statement to Ms Higgins about her comment, but made it clear she never doubted her sexual assault.

“I did not apologise for the lies she was telling about me and Fiona Brown,” she said.

When Senator Reynolds received a letter about Ms Higgins claim with the Commonwealth she says she did not realise the Attorney-General would completely take over her defence and exclude her from mediation.

The letter was marked confidential, the court heard, and that legal privilege applied to protect communications with Ms Higgins until the end of the criminal trial and any appeal to conclude.

The court was told through the senator’s lawyers she took issue with the requirements set out by the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth did not agree to her requests.

The senator confirmed she sent the letter about six days later to a journalist at The Australian using her personal email account.

Ms Young put to the senator that she knew the letter was confidential.

“I never signed the letter, it was a proposal the Commonwealth wanted,” Senator Reynolds said.

“I had not agreed to their confidentiality or terms, I never signed or agreed to have an order to lock me down.

Ms Higgins had a predilection for expensive clothes, including my jacket.

“What was top on my mind was the fact that I was not going to sign the confidentiality … I was not going to sign an agreement to be locked down.”

Senator Reynolds told the court she believed it was her staffer Nicky Hamer that leaked the “lying cow” comment to the media.

She made the claim during questions from her lawyer Mr Bennett who asked her about text messages she shared with Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow during the criminal trial

Mr Whybrow asked the senator to identify a jacket Ms Higgins was wearing in a photograph when she left Parliament House on the alleged rape.

Senator Reynolds confirmed the jacket was hers and sent a photo of her wearing it to Mr Whybrow as he requested.

She was questioned by Mr Whybrow about the meeting that took place where the alleged incident occurred and asked about a photo taken at the senator’s birthday.

Ms Higgins was shown wearing the same dress at the senator’s birthday on the night of the alleged rape.

“Compared to wearing the dress she was apparently raped in earlier, at the birthday dinner of the woman who hated her and sat next to her at her dinner,” Mr Whybrow said.

“Makes the April 1 meeting seem pretty tame by comparison.”

Senator Reynolds told the court she was sent photos of Ms Higgins going into the trial, which annoyed her greatly.

“Ms Higgins had a predilection for expensive clothes, including my jacket,“ she said.

Senator Reynolds said she was probably being a “little catty and over sensitive” about Ms Higgins imitating Kate Middleton going into trial.

with AAP