Speaker 1: From a Schwartz Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven Am.
Speaker 1: Lynda Reynolds's defamation case against her former employee Britney Higgins
Speaker 1: has been going for two weeks. It's the third trial
Speaker 1: in which Britney Higgins has been involved. First, there was
Speaker 1: the criminal trial of Bruce Lehman, which was aborted, meaning
Speaker 1: no findings were made against him. Lherman then sued at
Speaker 1: Work ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, claiming that they defamed
Speaker 1: him by identifying him as a rapist. He lost that
Speaker 1: case over a truth defense, meaning the court found that
Speaker 1: he did to a civil standard rape Miss Siggins in
Speaker 1: an office in Parliament House. Now seemingly out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: The Senator who that office belonged to, is suing Miss
Speaker 1: Higgins for claiming that the senator was uncaring and unsupportive.
Speaker 1: So as taking a rape victim to court the best
Speaker 1: way to restore your reputation. Today, the Saturday Papers Legal
Speaker 1: Affairs editor Richard Acklan my Senator Linda Reynolds defamation case
Speaker 1: and why some politicians are so quick to suit. It's Thursday,
Speaker 1: August fifteenth, which, in this case, was kicked off by
Speaker 1: an Instagram posts by Britney Higgins last year. But can
Speaker 1: you tell me about the specific claims being made by
Speaker 1: Senator Linda Reynolds and what she's basing the case on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, out of, sort of seemingly nowhere comes Senator
Speaker 2: Linda Reynolds, the former Defense Procurement Minister and later Defense Minister,
Speaker 2: claiming that she'd been defamed by Britney Higgins over a
Speaker 2: series of tweets and posts that suggested she wasn't caring
Speaker 2: and supportive of Brittney Higgins following her accusation of rape.
Speaker 2: The specific claims are that Senator Reynolds has conducted a
Speaker 2: campaign of harassment against Higgins, she mishandled the rape allegations
Speaker 2: by failing to provide support, that her conduct during Laman's
Speaker 2: criminal trial was questionable, and she wants to silence victims
Speaker 2: of sexual assault.
Speaker 3: And that seems to be the nub of it. And
Speaker 3: that all arose.
Speaker 2: From one post on Instagram by Britney Higgins pointing to
Speaker 2: headlines in the Sydney Morning Herald and The West Australian,
Speaker 2: where she says these are just headlines from today. This
Speaker 2: is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass
Speaker 2: me through the media and in the parliament, My former boss,
Speaker 2: who has publicly apologized for mishandling my rape allegation, who
Speaker 2: has had to publicly apologize for defaming me in the workplace,
Speaker 2: who's a whole bunch of questionable conduct during my rape trial.
Speaker 2: Who is suing my fiance for a tweet. This has
Speaker 2: been going on for years. It is time to stop.
Speaker 4: Can I say today? Sorry is the easiest word for
Speaker 4: me to say, and I unreservedly apologized to Brittany Higgins.
Speaker 4: And last night we all heard from Brittany herself in
Speaker 4: her own words, her trauma, her distress was very very
Speaker 4: clear to all to see. The fact that she felt
Speaker 4: unsupported in her time working here was also very very
Speaker 4: clear for us all to see. And for that I apologize.
Speaker 2: That was what she posted and that led to the
Speaker 2: defamation claims. She's saying that it's untrue and that has
Speaker 2: damaged her and she wants a remedy.
Speaker 3: She wants damages for that.
Speaker 1: So Senator Reynolds needs to argue that what was posted
Speaker 1: in those social media posts is untrue.
Speaker 2: Senator Reynolds in this case doesn't have to prove anything
Speaker 2: the onus is on Britney Higgins to prove the truth
Speaker 2: of what she published. That's the way defamation works.
Speaker 1: Regardless, we've heard some evidence from Senator Linda Renalds at
Speaker 1: this trial. What has she and some of her lawyers
Speaker 1: had to say so far.
Speaker 2: Well, Reynolds has given evidence and been cross examined. She
Speaker 2: has denied the claims she said. She was supportive, although
Speaker 2: there is evidence that might contradict that some aspects of that.
Speaker 2: She's bringing evidence on the trauma she suffered and the
Speaker 2: damage she's suffered. So these things all have to be
Speaker 2: demonstrated in court that you know what Higgins said, she
Speaker 2: alleged is wrong, that she's been damaged. And I mean
Speaker 2: it's been a very tear stained trial so far, with
Speaker 2: various breakdowns and sobbings and so forth. So that's what
Speaker 2: the judge's got to plow through and work out where
Speaker 2: the remedy lies, if there is one.
Speaker 1: So we've seen in the corporateceedings so far that former
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Scott Morrison was called as a witness for
Speaker 1: Linda Renold, which is interesting because he did hand her
Speaker 1: portfolio over to Peter Dutton during the height of the
Speaker 1: fallout of these othergations. Has his testimony been more about
Speaker 1: her welfare rather than her performance? What has been the
Speaker 1: reaction to his presentation to the court.
Speaker 2: I mean he said that, yeah, Look, he did remove
Speaker 2: Senator Reynolds from the defense portfolio because she was so
Speaker 2: damaged and injured by the accusations against her, both the
Speaker 2: campaign and the media, and also from labor Senators.
Speaker 4: Senator Gallagher, I did answer your questions to the point
Speaker 4: that you ground me to the ground and ended me
Speaker 4: ended up in the hospital.
Speaker 3: But I'm bad.
Speaker 4: I'm answering questions. I'm answering questions, and I'm assisting, Well,
Speaker 4: you just did age that we put you in hospital.
Speaker 1: Just let I put you in hospital, Senator Reynolds.
Speaker 2: You know, you could say that this probing of Senator
Speaker 2: Reynolds was part of the political process, trying to find
Speaker 2: out what exactly happened in her office, whether she was
Speaker 2: covering things up, whether she knew more than she was saying,
Speaker 2: and what happened to Britney Higgins. These were all I
Speaker 2: would have thought, quite legitimate issues for politicians to pursue.
Speaker 2: After all, this was an allegation of serious sexual assault
Speaker 2: in the Minister's office.
Speaker 3: I suppose the context is that.
Speaker 2: You know, there was an election in the wind, and
Speaker 2: the natural instinct of a government facing reelection is they
Speaker 2: don't want any dirty linen, you know, being aired.
Speaker 1: So Scott Morrison spoke to the mental impact. Have we
Speaker 1: heard any evidence to counter the argument that Senator Reynolds
Speaker 1: was uncaring towards Britney Higgins.
Speaker 2: We've seen all sorts of evidence. I'm not quite sure
Speaker 2: the importance of it or what it actually means. That
Speaker 2: Britney Higgins was happy on the campaign trail, that she
Speaker 2: was supportive of Linda Reynolds in the campaign in Western Australia,
Speaker 2: and that she was you know, texting and seen smiling
Speaker 2: and sending messages about have what fun she was having
Speaker 2: sitting by the pool and having dinners with Linda Reynolds
Speaker 2: and so on. Whether that is significant in the scheme
Speaker 2: of things depends on whether you discount that he was
Speaker 2: a woman that was raped in the Minister's office trying
Speaker 2: to make life as normal as possible and trying to
Speaker 2: conduct herself in a manner that she could feel comfortable
Speaker 2: with and that life was normal, and you know, she
Speaker 2: wasn't going to be completely traumatized forever.
Speaker 1: Now, what about Britney Higgins. What's her defense going into
Speaker 1: this hearing.
Speaker 3: She's got several defenses.
Speaker 2: She's pleading a truth defense, a justification defense. She says
Speaker 2: that the accusations she made against Senator Reynolds are true.
Speaker 2: She's also pleading various components of what's called qualified privilege,
Speaker 2: that she has a right and has an interest in
Speaker 2: making these remarks, and that the community has an interest
Speaker 2: in receiving them. There's also another common law qualified privileged
Speaker 2: defense called the Longey defense, which is that discussions on
Speaker 2: matters concerning politics and government should be treated liberally. Mind you,
Speaker 2: it's not a defense that's worked terribly well for defendants
Speaker 2: in defamation cases, but nonetheless it's there and she's pleading it.
Speaker 1: It's been revealed in court that Senator Reynolds has leaked
Speaker 1: to the Australian. How is that played out?
Speaker 3: Well, that's right.
Speaker 2: These were the leaks concerning discussions that Britney Higgins was
Speaker 2: having with the Commonwealth, and at some point in these discussions,
Speaker 2: Senator Reynolds was looped in to the process by the
Speaker 2: Attorney General's Department. The Attorney General's Department said, we've got
Speaker 2: a claim here from Britney Higgins for compensation, personal injury
Speaker 2: and other things that arose as a result of.
Speaker 3: What happened in your office.
Speaker 2: However, we are sending you some details of this. They
Speaker 2: attract legal professional privilege, so you're not to discuss them
Speaker 2: or not to share them with other people, and we
Speaker 2: hope you are.
Speaker 3: Bide by that.
Speaker 2: So she promptly then gave them to Janet Albreson, who's
Speaker 2: a columnist at The Australian, and al Bresen's you know,
Speaker 2: splashed them with some excitable headlines that you know, suggesting
Speaker 2: that Reynolds has been silenced and can't talk about something
Speaker 2: that is very important to her. This seemed to be
Speaker 2: a bit of a beat up and certainly in breach
Speaker 2: of the legal professional privilege that have been claimed on
Speaker 2: the documents. Reynolds just says, oh, well, I didn't agree
Speaker 2: to that, and I was angry. And at the same
Speaker 2: time al Bresen at The Australian was a ally of hers,
Speaker 2: had been very supportive. So why wouldn't she lead her
Speaker 2: Why didn't she leak to the ABC or the Guardian
Speaker 2: or the Saturday Paper.
Speaker 1: Well, exactly exactly. So there was an attempt to sway
Speaker 1: the court of public opinion. Given that we're two weeks
Speaker 1: into this hearing, what's the narrative that's emerging from it?
Speaker 1: How's it playing out?
Speaker 3: Look?
Speaker 2: It puzzles me. I'm completely confounded by this case. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you think, just momentarily, that Senator Reynolds feels she's
Speaker 2: hurt and damaged at the allegation that she's been an
Speaker 2: uncaring and unsupportive woman. So her response to that is
Speaker 2: to take to court a rape victim, a woman, a
Speaker 2: young woman that was raped on her couch in her office,
Speaker 2: who was emotionally traumatized and psychologically damaged by that. So
Speaker 2: her idea to restore her reputation that she's not an
Speaker 2: uncaring woman is to sue Brittany Higgins. I mean, many
Speaker 2: people may think there's a sort of inherent contradiction in that,
Speaker 2: but I mean, how's it played out? I mean, the
Speaker 2: tweets and the Instagram posts that Linda Reynolds says a
Speaker 2: damaging of her, we're all deleted. No one has a
Speaker 2: clue what was in them, except now, of course they've
Speaker 2: been revived. They're in the pleadings. Everyone can see them
Speaker 2: and they're being reventilated. So this is not a good
Speaker 2: way to sort of forget things and move on. And
Speaker 2: of course Senator Reynolds may be still smarting over the
Speaker 2: fact that she had to settle a defamation clan that
Speaker 2: Britney Higgins brought against her over the lying cow remark.
Speaker 5: Senator Reynolds called Miss Higgins a lying cow. Today there
Speaker 5: was finally an apology in a statement. The Minister said
Speaker 5: she wanted to express how deeply sorry I am for
Speaker 5: these remarks and for any hurt and distress they have caused.
Speaker 3: So look, it's a dog's breakfast.
Speaker 1: Suing for defamation is not exactly new to the political culture.
Speaker 1: That's after the break Richard, Senator Reynolds is not the
Speaker 1: first politician to start a defamation case in Australia. Can
Speaker 1: you give us some examples of other politicians who've done
Speaker 1: similar things?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: In recent memory, there was the Christian Porter claim against
Speaker 2: the ABC, which ended up being very damaging to him
Speaker 2: as a assault of suing. The ABC had to step
Speaker 2: down as Attorney General because that action was in the
Speaker 2: Federal Court over which he had a sort of ministerial oversight.
Speaker 2: Peter Dutton went nowhere with a claim against a refugee
Speaker 2: advocate who said that he was a rape apologist on Twitter,
Speaker 2: and that went nowhere because the comment by the refugee
Speaker 2: advocate was in context to Dutton's remarks about refugees on
Speaker 2: Naru faking that they had been raped and having to
Speaker 2: come to Australia for medical attention.
Speaker 6: Some people are trying it on.
Speaker 3: Let's be serious about this.
Speaker 6: There are people that claimed that they'd been raped and
Speaker 6: came to Australia to seek an abortion because they couldn't.
Speaker 3: Get an abortion on Naru.
Speaker 6: They arrived in Australia and then decided that they were
Speaker 6: not going to have an abortion.
Speaker 3: They have the baby here.
Speaker 6: The moment they step off the plane, their lawyers lodge
Speaker 6: papers in the Federal Court which injuncts us from sending
Speaker 6: them back.
Speaker 1: So it's fair to say, though Richard, that defamation cases
Speaker 1: don't actually go very well for politicians broadly.
Speaker 2: Why is that the case, Well, if their jury cases,
Speaker 2: I suppose the jury has to make up its main
Speaker 2: hurt as a hate more the politician or the media,
Speaker 2: and maybe that's one area where the media might come
Speaker 2: off a bit better. So most of them received very
Speaker 2: miserable damages. The cost of running a case would have
Speaker 2: far exceeded the damages they received. And has it changed
Speaker 2: any perception about their reputation or heal their wounded pride?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's all very doubtful, and it's such a
Speaker 2: sort of ancient remedy, and it's such an antiquated remedy.
Speaker 2: You know that money is the balm. If we give
Speaker 2: you a bunch of money, you'll feel better.
Speaker 1: And how much could the damages be In Linda Reynolds's case,
Speaker 1: damages are meant to be capped, but she's claiming aggravated
Speaker 1: damages as well.
Speaker 2: I mean, if Brittney Higgins can't prove the truth, then
Speaker 2: I think the damages might be fairly well at large
Speaker 2: into the hundreds of thousands. But where does the money
Speaker 2: come from? I mean, Brittaney Higgins is selling the house
Speaker 2: in France and that presumably will pay her lawyers. She
Speaker 2: has the Commonwealth settlement in a trust. The other aspect
Speaker 2: of the protection that she is afforded is that damages
Speaker 2: for personal injury are exempt under the Bankruptcy Act. So
Speaker 2: where the money comes from if Senator Reynolds is successful
Speaker 2: is a mystery, and while she's proceeding knowing, that makes
Speaker 2: it a double mystery.
Speaker 1: And I guess that plays out in the public perception
Speaker 1: of politicians suing for defamation. Politicians comments and reputations are
Speaker 1: constantly under scrutiny. But he's part of the job. So
Speaker 1: shouldn't they just be able to face hass comments and
Speaker 1: criticism and avoid actions like this?
Speaker 3: I think so.
Speaker 2: I absolutely agree with that, And they've got their own
Speaker 2: remedies in Parliament. The whole point of parliamentary Cliffiage was
Speaker 2: to design to give them complete freedom of speech and
Speaker 2: to respond to things that damage their reputations in parliament.
Speaker 3: They don't need the courts.
Speaker 2: I think the public is fed up with this sort
Speaker 2: of thing, honestly, I mean, shouldn't she be getting on
Speaker 2: with the job. She's a senator from the open Quiry
Speaker 2: called West in Australia.
Speaker 3: This requires work and.
Speaker 2: She's deflected from all of this by bringing these proceedings.
Speaker 1: The court seems like a weird distortion of the old
Speaker 1: saying you could be cruel to be kind Richard, I
Speaker 1: think so. Yes, Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, it's a pleasure and good to talk.
Speaker 1: Daniel Also in the news today, Opposition leader Peter Dutton
Speaker 1: has doubled down on calls for a ban on people
Speaker 1: from Gaza coming to Australia. Since October seven, around twelve
Speaker 1: hundred Palestinians escaping violence have come to Australia, with another
Speaker 1: four thousand, six hundred visa applications being rejected. Dutton's call
Speaker 1: follows ASIO director Mark Burgess's statement over the weekend that
Speaker 1: rhetorical support for hamas does not automatically mean an applicant
Speaker 1: failed security test. The Opposition leader responded that he felt
Speaker 1: any Palestinian entering Australia quote puts our national security at risk,
Speaker 1: and seven West Media's yearly profits have taken an enormous hit,
Speaker 1: with a drop of sixty nine to forty five million dollars.
Speaker 1: Chief executive Jeff Howard has attributed to Stark declined to
Speaker 1: falling advertising revenue and losing the rights to the Olympics.
Speaker 1: The news comes just days after an investigation by ABC's
Speaker 1: Four Corners featuring allegations of bullying and misogyny across the network,
Speaker 1: sparked by revelations about Channel seven Spotlight program reimbursing Bruce
Speaker 1: Lehman for sex workers and illicit drugs. I'm Daniel James.
Speaker 1: This is seven am. See you tomorrow.