WEBVTT - Brittany Higgins becomes the defendant

0:00:06.000 --> 0:00:08.360
<v Speaker 1>You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker

0:00:08.520 --> 0:00:12.639
<v Speaker 1>every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play

0:00:12.680 --> 0:00:23.520
<v Speaker 1>the news from the Australian. From the Australian Keyes, what's

0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:26.479
<v Speaker 1>on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Monday, August five.

0:00:30.160 --> 0:00:33.240
<v Speaker 1>There's a giant shakeup coming for aviation as the federal

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:36.879
<v Speaker 1>government vows to crack down on anti competitive behavior and

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 1>make it easier for new airlines to use Australia's biggest airport, Sydney.

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.760
<v Speaker 1>One of the nation's most senior Indigenous leaders is accusing

0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:51.480
<v Speaker 1>Anthony Albanesi of breaking an election promise after the PM

0:00:51.520 --> 0:00:54.760
<v Speaker 1>said he won't establish a Macarata Commission for Treaty and

0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:59.480
<v Speaker 1>Truth Telling ULARU Dialogue co chair Pat Anderson says Albanese's

0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>position is confusing and a breach of his vow to

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>enact the Uluru Statement in full. Former Morrison government minister

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:13.520
<v Speaker 1>Linda Reynolds will enter the witness box in Perth this

0:01:13.640 --> 0:01:18.000
<v Speaker 1>week in her defamation case against former employee Brittany Higgins

0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 1>and her husband David Chiraz. Reynolds says Higgins and Schiraz

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:27.040
<v Speaker 1>deliberately plotted to make her the villain in higgins account

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:31.399
<v Speaker 1>of being raped in Parliament House today. Who can possibly

0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:44.680
<v Speaker 1>win such a personal and expensive legal battle. On July four,

0:01:44.920 --> 0:01:49.280
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty three, Brittaney Higgins fired up her Instagram and

0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:51.320
<v Speaker 1>published this story.

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:55.640
<v Speaker 2>This is from a current Australian senator who continues to

0:01:55.680 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 2>harass me through.

0:01:56.520 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 1>The media and in the Parliament.

0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:03.160
<v Speaker 2>My former boss, who publicly apologized for mishandling my rape allegation,

0:02:03.960 --> 0:02:07.120
<v Speaker 2>who has had to apologize publicly after defending me in

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 2>the workplace, who had a whole bunch of questionable conduct

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:14.800
<v Speaker 2>during my rape trial, who was suing my fiance for

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:17.880
<v Speaker 2>a tweet. This has been going on for years now.

0:02:18.160 --> 0:02:19.240
<v Speaker 2>It is time to stop.

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>We're using a voice actor to bring you Higgins's words,

0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:26.360
<v Speaker 1>the meaning of which are totally denied by that boss,

0:02:26.600 --> 0:02:30.839
<v Speaker 1>Senator Linda Reynolds. Included in that Instagram story were two

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:35.600
<v Speaker 1>headlines from that day's news reporting that Senator Reynolds, Higgins's

0:02:35.639 --> 0:02:39.359
<v Speaker 1>former ministerial boss, was objecting to a two point four

0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:43.720
<v Speaker 1>million dollar compensation payout Higgins had received from the Commonwealth.

0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:48.760
<v Speaker 1>On twenty July twenty twenty three, Higgins quoted a story

0:02:48.800 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 1>from The Australian that said Senator Reynolds was suggesting an

0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:57.119
<v Speaker 1>amendment to the Act's Crimes Act to deter individuals from

0:02:57.240 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>using the media or Parliament to refer to an alleged

0:03:00.639 --> 0:03:03.960
<v Speaker 1>criminal offense that ought properly to be the subject of

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:08.320
<v Speaker 1>the criminal justice process. She's what Higgins said on Twitter.

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 2>Imagine being the person earnestly attempting to change the Crime

0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:15.520
<v Speaker 2>Act to make it illegal for alleged sexual assault survivors

0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:18.959
<v Speaker 2>to talk about their lived experience, as opposed to, you know,

0:03:19.120 --> 0:03:24.560
<v Speaker 2>reforming the justice system to actually prosecuting perpetrators. This proposal

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:27.480
<v Speaker 2>completely undermines all the crucial work done by the Let

0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:30.840
<v Speaker 2>Her Speak campaign and the March for Justice movement. Instead

0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 2>of solving the problem, there are people who would prefer

0:03:33.320 --> 0:03:34.600
<v Speaker 2>to just silence victims.

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:39.480
<v Speaker 1>Now, Reynolds is suing Higgins and her husband David Cheraz

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 1>for defamation. On Monday, Reynolds will enter the witness box

0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:48.560
<v Speaker 1>that the truth is about to be told. It voluntarily

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 1>time for the truth.

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 3>She sees this very much as her chance to set

0:03:54.040 --> 0:03:55.560
<v Speaker 3>the record straight in her eyes.

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:58.920
<v Speaker 1>Paul Garvey is a senior journalist with The Australian who

0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>was in court on Friday when Reynold's lawyer opened the case.

0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 3>She feels like she's been marginalized silence through this process

0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:11.560
<v Speaker 3>that hasn't had her side told properly and certainly listening

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:14.120
<v Speaker 3>to the opening remarks of her lawyer, Mutton Bennett, it

0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:18.680
<v Speaker 3>was clear that this was almost as much about finally

0:04:18.720 --> 0:04:22.000
<v Speaker 3>giving her her say as it was about pursuing the

0:04:22.040 --> 0:04:23.480
<v Speaker 3>defamation matter in itself.

0:04:24.800 --> 0:04:29.320
<v Speaker 1>Reynolds is also alleging that David Scharraz, now Higgins's husband,

0:04:29.760 --> 0:04:34.440
<v Speaker 1>defied her on twenty seven January twenty twenty two by tweeting.

0:04:34.240 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 4>This, there is a very real chance Linda Reynolds will

0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 4>be called to court this year to answer questions on

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:44.799
<v Speaker 4>her involvement in Brittany Higgins. Feeling pressured by her office

0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:48.200
<v Speaker 4>not to continue with a complaint to police, she uploads

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:50.480
<v Speaker 4>this to her official website.

0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:55.680
<v Speaker 1>Charraz included a screenshot of Reynolds's website, which described the

0:04:55.720 --> 0:05:00.000
<v Speaker 1>senator as a passionate champion for gender equality and female empowerment.

0:05:01.200 --> 0:05:05.240
<v Speaker 1>Reynolds says that tweet defined her by implying she was

0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 1>a hypocrite.

0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:10.960
<v Speaker 3>The content of those posts barely cracked dimension through the opening.

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:14.599
<v Speaker 3>The opening was devoted to a large chunk that was

0:05:14.600 --> 0:05:18.159
<v Speaker 3>devoted to discussing the Commonwealth settlement that was paid to

0:05:18.240 --> 0:05:21.719
<v Speaker 3>Britney Higgins. Now, Linda Reynolds was frozen out of that

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:25.279
<v Speaker 3>process and that's been a big bone of contention for

0:05:25.360 --> 0:05:28.600
<v Speaker 3>her throughout this whole saga.

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>So a quick recap. Britney Higgins has previously said in

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.280
<v Speaker 1>an interview with The Project, in a criminal trial and

0:05:37.480 --> 0:05:40.960
<v Speaker 1>in a civil trial, that she felt ignored, ostracized, and

0:05:41.040 --> 0:05:44.400
<v Speaker 1>discouraged from going to police after telling her bosses she'd

0:05:44.440 --> 0:05:47.760
<v Speaker 1>been raped on a sofa in Reynolds's office. The federal

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:51.159
<v Speaker 1>courts found, on the balance of probabilities, Higgins was raped

0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 1>on that sofa by fellow staffer Bruce Lammon. He's appealing

0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:59.480
<v Speaker 1>that finding. Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Brown have always denied discouraging Higgins and have insisted actually

0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:07.240
<v Speaker 1>they encouraged her to go to police.

0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:10.719
<v Speaker 3>What we heard from Martin Bennett, reynolds lawyer, was a

0:06:10.760 --> 0:06:15.640
<v Speaker 3>lot about the efforts that Reynolds and her immediate team

0:06:15.720 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 3>went to to try to support Higgins, to try to

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:22.919
<v Speaker 3>make sure that she had options open to her, but

0:06:23.000 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 3>that she remained the master of her own destiny. Around

0:06:26.000 --> 0:06:29.040
<v Speaker 3>whether or not she went to police, So not exploring

0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:32.479
<v Speaker 3>whether or not Higgins was actually raped, but whether or

0:06:32.520 --> 0:06:38.760
<v Speaker 3>not Linda Reynolds deliberately and callously neglected and made Higgins

0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 3>suffer through this process.

0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:44.920
<v Speaker 1>Linda Reynolds case seems to allege a really quite significant

0:06:45.000 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 1>level of premeditation and planning by Brittany Higgins and David

0:06:50.000 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 1>Shiraz in the way that they were going to portray

0:06:53.440 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Linda Reynolds in the Project interview and obviously subsequently in

0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:02.720
<v Speaker 1>these social media posts. That's an interesting take on this case.

0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:05.560
<v Speaker 1>It's a new one we haven't necessarily heard before, isn't it, Paul?

0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:06.600
<v Speaker 4>It is.

0:07:06.760 --> 0:07:09.400
<v Speaker 3>I mean, typically when we're talking about defamation cases, we're

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:12.720
<v Speaker 3>looking at the publication and the impact that it has

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:15.960
<v Speaker 3>had on an individual's reputation. Here, we're going much more

0:07:16.000 --> 0:07:19.360
<v Speaker 3>granular and forensic in a way to look at the

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:24.040
<v Speaker 3>base motivations and the deliberate tactics that Reynolds and Bennett's

0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:26.160
<v Speaker 3>say were employed by Higgins and Scharraz.

0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 1>Here, Reynolds has plenty of material to work with the

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:34.760
<v Speaker 1>epic defamation trial where Bruce lemm ensued Network ten and

0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:40.240
<v Speaker 1>presenter Lisa Wilkinson yielded all tens notes, emails, and recordings,

0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:44.840
<v Speaker 1>including a five hour conversation between Higgins, Charaz, Wilkinson, and

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:49.560
<v Speaker 1>producer Angus Llewellyn in which Sharaz cracked jokes about Reynolds

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.760
<v Speaker 1>and Higgins said things like this again, we've used a

0:07:53.840 --> 0:07:56.920
<v Speaker 1>voice actor. And Higgins is talking about her belief she'd

0:07:56.960 --> 0:07:59.440
<v Speaker 1>be more likely to win a civil trial where her

0:07:59.480 --> 0:08:02.280
<v Speaker 1>allegation against Bruce Lherman were tested.

0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:05.040
<v Speaker 2>I would love to have a court case on like

0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:07.320
<v Speaker 2>civil if he wants to go after me on a

0:08:07.360 --> 0:08:10.280
<v Speaker 2>civil basis, I think on the balance of probabilities, I

0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:12.640
<v Speaker 2>think I could win. I think if the owners of

0:08:12.720 --> 0:08:15.680
<v Speaker 2>proof is beyond reasonable doubt, I think that would be different.

0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:17.840
<v Speaker 2>I don't think i'd win that.

0:08:17.840 --> 0:08:20.720
<v Speaker 3>That's really at the crux of this argument from Reynolds,

0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:23.520
<v Speaker 3>that there was a deliberate plan to drag her into this.

0:08:24.080 --> 0:08:27.600
<v Speaker 3>That transcript you see the parties discussing in that the

0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:29.880
<v Speaker 3>exact timing of things, trying to line it up with

0:08:30.120 --> 0:08:33.880
<v Speaker 3>a sitting week, discussing which friendly journalists to drop it to,

0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:38.200
<v Speaker 3>which friendly laybor MP's to brief on the saga, to

0:08:38.960 --> 0:08:42.160
<v Speaker 3>ensure that this went as far and as wide as possible,

0:08:42.840 --> 0:08:46.680
<v Speaker 3>and what Bennett and Reynolds would say is this effort

0:08:46.760 --> 0:08:50.520
<v Speaker 3>to make sure it wasn't just about a young woman

0:08:51.160 --> 0:08:53.800
<v Speaker 3>allegedly getting raped it in her workplace, that it was

0:08:53.840 --> 0:08:57.600
<v Speaker 3>about a political cover up of that incident too, which

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:01.880
<v Speaker 3>I think Bennett and Reynolds are both arguing that Higgins

0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:04.360
<v Speaker 3>and Chiraz knew that it needed to have that broader

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:09.520
<v Speaker 3>aspect to it, that extra dimension to make it a bigger, spicier,

0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 3>more dramatic story.

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:17.600
<v Speaker 1>Linda Reynolds had to deal upfront with her own attack

0:09:17.640 --> 0:09:21.000
<v Speaker 1>on Brittany Higgins, a moment when she called Higgins a

0:09:21.120 --> 0:09:25.040
<v Speaker 1>lying cow and then had to apologize and settle a

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:27.400
<v Speaker 1>defamation action brought by Higgins.

0:09:28.080 --> 0:09:29.960
<v Speaker 3>For those who missed it early on in the saga,

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:31.680
<v Speaker 3>I think it was us that the Australian who broke

0:09:31.720 --> 0:09:35.240
<v Speaker 3>this story about Nnda Reynolds using that phrase lying cow

0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:38.480
<v Speaker 3>to describe Higgins when she was watching the project interview.

0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:44.239
<v Speaker 3>So Bennett, basically his argument is that it wasn't suggesting

0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 3>that Higgins was lying about whether or not she was raped,

0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:52.640
<v Speaker 3>it was lying about Reynolds's efforts to support or protect

0:09:52.640 --> 0:09:54.040
<v Speaker 3>her in the aftermath.

0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:58.280
<v Speaker 1>So Reynolds is saying she did call Higgins a lying cow,

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>but only because she object so passionately to the claim

0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:05.520
<v Speaker 1>Reynolds had ignored or tried to minimize her rape.

0:10:06.080 --> 0:10:11.160
<v Speaker 3>So Bennett explained it that the comments lying was, he said,

0:10:11.600 --> 0:10:16.160
<v Speaker 3>utterly appropriate given what Higgins was saying Reynolds had done

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:19.120
<v Speaker 3>in her handling of that saga. He said the cow

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.760
<v Speaker 3>line was unfortunate, but was basically a byproduct of the

0:10:22.880 --> 0:10:27.719
<v Speaker 3>anger that Reynolds had at that time hearing the allegations

0:10:27.760 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 3>were made about her, and then the portrayal of her

0:10:29.800 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 3>as someone who was quite sort of brutal towards this

0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:37.400
<v Speaker 3>vulnerable young woman. So it's all part of what seems

0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:40.800
<v Speaker 3>to be an element of this case, which is giving

0:10:40.960 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 3>Linda Reynolds a voice after all these years.

0:10:47.400 --> 0:10:50.760
<v Speaker 1>Coming up after years of pre troll wrangling and a

0:10:50.880 --> 0:10:54.960
<v Speaker 1>hugely expensive court hearing. Who can possibly walk away from

0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:58.880
<v Speaker 1>this a winner? Something that won't bankrupt anyone is a

0:10:58.880 --> 0:11:01.680
<v Speaker 1>subscription to The Australian. It's a dollar a week for

0:11:01.720 --> 0:11:04.439
<v Speaker 1>the first four weeks to get the nation's best journalism

0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:07.199
<v Speaker 1>twenty four to seven. Check us out at the Australian

0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:25.160
<v Speaker 1>dot com dot a U. This week, Linda Reynolds will

0:11:25.160 --> 0:11:29.480
<v Speaker 1>give evidence and next week she'll call witnesses, including former

0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:33.080
<v Speaker 1>PM Scott Morrison. I don't know if it's just that

0:11:33.160 --> 0:11:35.120
<v Speaker 1>I spent a lot of time covering the Bruce Lamon

0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:38.360
<v Speaker 1>defamation trial, and I know that that costs millions and

0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:40.440
<v Speaker 1>millions of dollars for both sides. But I can only

0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 1>think this must be costing Linda Reynolds a.

0:11:42.920 --> 0:11:47.839
<v Speaker 3>Fortune, absolutely, and it's something that has left a lot

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:52.520
<v Speaker 3>of people quite baffle confused around this whole saga, and

0:11:52.559 --> 0:11:57.560
<v Speaker 3>that both Reynolds and Higgins don't have a whole bunch

0:11:57.600 --> 0:11:59.800
<v Speaker 3>of assets to throw at this right the Lerman t

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:03.839
<v Speaker 3>while Network ten it's a corporate behemoth. Linda Reynolds is

0:12:03.840 --> 0:12:06.120
<v Speaker 3>funding this out of her own pocket. Her lawyer has

0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:08.440
<v Speaker 3>already said that she has had to re mortgage her

0:12:08.520 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 3>house to fund this. Now. I don't think Linda Reynolds

0:12:12.400 --> 0:12:14.600
<v Speaker 3>would mind me saying this, but she's not a young woman, right,

0:12:14.679 --> 0:12:17.079
<v Speaker 3>She's at the very end of her career. She's retiring

0:12:17.240 --> 0:12:22.000
<v Speaker 3>at the next election. She is not a prime example

0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:26.360
<v Speaker 3>of someone who should be driving themselves into hock to

0:12:26.440 --> 0:12:29.120
<v Speaker 3>fund a legal action. But it shows that for her,

0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:31.800
<v Speaker 3>she sees this very much as her legacy, her reputation

0:12:31.880 --> 0:12:34.160
<v Speaker 3>on the line here, but the cost of that is

0:12:34.280 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 3>significant financially. If she wins, she can get some money

0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:42.760
<v Speaker 3>from Miss Higgins in theory, but that will then involve

0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:45.760
<v Speaker 3>delving into the trust that Miss Higgins has set up,

0:12:46.120 --> 0:12:49.200
<v Speaker 3>whether that's achievable or not, whether there'll be anything left

0:12:49.240 --> 0:12:55.720
<v Speaker 3>by the time it comes to that as well. And

0:12:55.760 --> 0:12:59.480
<v Speaker 3>then from miss Higgins's side, she was, as far as

0:12:59.480 --> 0:13:02.319
<v Speaker 3>the federal court determined, at least she was actually raped

0:13:02.360 --> 0:13:05.199
<v Speaker 3>that day, and she would be left in the position

0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:08.560
<v Speaker 3>where she suddenly has to write a check to the

0:13:08.600 --> 0:13:10.800
<v Speaker 3>boss of the office in which she was raped, which,

0:13:11.160 --> 0:13:13.200
<v Speaker 3>if you put yourself in her shoes, that's quite an

0:13:13.520 --> 0:13:17.439
<v Speaker 3>uncomfortable thing to say the least, so as really lose

0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:21.079
<v Speaker 3>lose for all concerned. It seems apparent from the outside

0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:23.559
<v Speaker 3>that that's always going to be the end result here.

0:13:24.160 --> 0:13:27.080
<v Speaker 3>The pleadings of judges who have handled this case to

0:13:27.160 --> 0:13:30.440
<v Speaker 3>date to both parties saying, look, please find a way

0:13:30.480 --> 0:13:32.959
<v Speaker 3>to set all this. Don't take this trial. It won't

0:13:32.960 --> 0:13:36.559
<v Speaker 3>work out for you. We can all see the end result.

0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:40.000
<v Speaker 3>It doesn't look pretty for other party. Yet here we are,

0:13:40.160 --> 0:13:41.320
<v Speaker 3>and it's going all the way.

0:13:42.280 --> 0:13:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Of course, now Britney Higgins and David Schaaz are the

0:13:44.600 --> 0:13:46.880
<v Speaker 1>defendants in this matter, which means they have to come

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:51.000
<v Speaker 1>up with some defenses to the alleged defamation. We see

0:13:51.000 --> 0:13:54.240
<v Speaker 1>publishers use the defense of truth and also attempts to

0:13:54.240 --> 0:13:57.839
<v Speaker 1>show that their journalism was reasonable. I can only imagine

0:13:57.840 --> 0:14:01.360
<v Speaker 1>in this case, and reading your report of Martin Bennett's opening,

0:14:01.400 --> 0:14:05.280
<v Speaker 1>that Britney higgins defense is going to be truth, that

0:14:05.320 --> 0:14:08.559
<v Speaker 1>this was true. What do you think her defense is

0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:08.960
<v Speaker 1>going to be?

0:14:09.600 --> 0:14:11.880
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, from what we've seen so far, it's very much

0:14:11.880 --> 0:14:16.800
<v Speaker 3>about her trying to establish that Reynolds did isolate her,

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:20.880
<v Speaker 3>that there was this, as she calls it, harassment of

0:14:20.920 --> 0:14:24.640
<v Speaker 3>her through that process. We will hear from miss Higgins

0:14:24.720 --> 0:14:26.600
<v Speaker 3>later in the trial. I think she started down to

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.000
<v Speaker 3>give about three days of evidence. I think Martin Bennett,

0:14:30.040 --> 0:14:33.080
<v Speaker 3>for Reynolds, has already shown a little bit as to

0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:35.280
<v Speaker 3>how he's going to approach that. A lot of what

0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:38.800
<v Speaker 3>Higgins has said over the journey has been about I

0:14:38.880 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 3>felt that I was neglected, I felt that I wasn't supported.

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:44.760
<v Speaker 3>He gave a line during the proceedings a couple of

0:14:44.800 --> 0:14:48.400
<v Speaker 3>times on Friday, saying that feelings are not facts that

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:51.240
<v Speaker 3>just because you feel something doesn't make it true. He

0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:55.560
<v Speaker 3>will be very much focused on where's the documentary evidence,

0:14:55.840 --> 0:14:57.720
<v Speaker 3>how do you show this? And that's why I think

0:14:57.760 --> 0:15:00.960
<v Speaker 3>there was a lot of time spent on Friday going

0:15:01.000 --> 0:15:04.880
<v Speaker 3>over the text messages and the photographs of Brittney Higgins

0:15:05.000 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 3>during her time in Perth. So, just to go back

0:15:08.200 --> 0:15:12.400
<v Speaker 3>a step, when Higgins negotiated that settlement with the Commonwealth,

0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:15.280
<v Speaker 3>that two point four four five million dollars that she received,

0:15:15.880 --> 0:15:21.080
<v Speaker 3>part of her claim was that she was sent to

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:23.680
<v Speaker 3>Perth where she worked alone in a hotel room seven

0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:26.600
<v Speaker 3>days a week for six weeks, and that that caused

0:15:26.640 --> 0:15:30.480
<v Speaker 3>her a deterioration in her mental health. So Bennett on

0:15:30.560 --> 0:15:34.480
<v Speaker 3>Friday spent hours going through text messages that she was

0:15:34.520 --> 0:15:36.000
<v Speaker 3>sending to her then boyfriend.

0:15:37.520 --> 0:15:41.760
<v Speaker 2>It's actually a really nice place and surprisingly spacious, hahuh.

0:15:41.880 --> 0:15:44.400
<v Speaker 2>Just helping them out with all the campaign launches coming up,

0:15:44.520 --> 0:15:45.560
<v Speaker 2>fundraising events.

0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:47.360
<v Speaker 1>It's been pretty fun actually.

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:50.560
<v Speaker 3>She talked about how much fun she was having working

0:15:50.600 --> 0:15:53.080
<v Speaker 3>on the campaign, how she was out and about door knocking,

0:15:53.120 --> 0:15:56.040
<v Speaker 3>how she was at campaign events and launches and dinners

0:15:56.040 --> 0:15:56.760
<v Speaker 3>and breakfasts.

0:15:58.400 --> 0:16:03.320
<v Speaker 2>My day has been awesome spent pool side. It's been

0:16:03.360 --> 0:16:06.480
<v Speaker 2>really nice liking the WA office. I can't wait for

0:16:06.520 --> 0:16:08.600
<v Speaker 2>the ANZAC Day festivities.

0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:13.240
<v Speaker 3>And then this procession of photos showing her doing that

0:16:13.360 --> 0:16:16.880
<v Speaker 3>door knocking standing with the Prime Minister being a smiley,

0:16:16.920 --> 0:16:19.600
<v Speaker 3>knotty head in the background of press events and the like.

0:16:21.400 --> 0:16:23.560
<v Speaker 2>I will be in the back of the PM's announcement today.

0:16:23.920 --> 0:16:25.800
<v Speaker 2>This is my fifteen minutes of fame.

0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:31.080
<v Speaker 3>So really sort of signaling that if miss Higgins wants

0:16:31.120 --> 0:16:33.320
<v Speaker 3>to make that claim that she will need to actually

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:36.520
<v Speaker 3>back that up with hard evidence. That seems to be

0:16:36.520 --> 0:16:38.920
<v Speaker 3>Bennett's aproach at this point in time, and something that

0:16:38.960 --> 0:16:42.240
<v Speaker 3>he will no doubt thoroughly explore when Higgins does on

0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:43.480
<v Speaker 3>the stand later this month.

0:16:52.800 --> 0:16:55.920
<v Speaker 1>Paul Gravey is a senior journalist with The Australian. We'll

0:16:55.920 --> 0:16:59.600
<v Speaker 1>have live coverage of that trial exclusively for our subscribers

0:16:59.720 --> 0:17:01.880
<v Speaker 1>at the Australian dot com dot a You