1
00:00:06,040 --> 00:00:08,400
Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker

2
00:00:08,520 --> 00:00:12,680
Speaker 1: every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play

3
00:00:12,680 --> 00:00:23,360
Speaker 1: the news from the Australian. From the Australian, Here's what's

4
00:00:23,360 --> 00:00:26,880
Speaker 1: on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Thursday, August twenty two.

5
00:00:30,560 --> 00:00:33,559
Speaker 1: Politicians will face fines for bad behavior in the workplace

6
00:00:33,680 --> 00:00:37,080
Speaker 1: under new legislation introduced by the government, including a new

7
00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:41,360
Speaker 1: code that threatens having paidoct by more than eleven thousand dollars.

8
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:47,400
Speaker 1: Barack and Michelle Obama have given Kamala Harris their full

9
00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:53,000
Speaker 1: throated endorsement at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Michelle,

10
00:00:53,159 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 1: talk tough.

11
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:58,440
Speaker 2: We only have two and a half months, y'all to

12
00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:05,640
Speaker 2: get this done. So we cannot afford for anyone, anyone,

13
00:01:05,840 --> 00:01:08,720
Speaker 2: anyone America to sit on their hands and wait to

14
00:01:08,760 --> 00:01:13,400
Speaker 2: be called. There is simply no time for that kind

15
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:14,280
Speaker 2: of foolishness.

16
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:18,560
Speaker 1: And Barack went for Donald Trump.

17
00:01:19,040 --> 00:01:23,640
Speaker 3: We do not need four more years a bluster and

18
00:01:23,800 --> 00:01:28,920
Speaker 3: bumbling and chaos. We have seen that movie before and

19
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:32,000
Speaker 3: we all know that the sequel is usually worse.

20
00:01:32,920 --> 00:01:35,920
Speaker 1: We've got the best coverage of American politics, from Life

21
00:01:35,920 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 1: Reporting to the Sharpest Analysis twenty four to seven at

22
00:01:39,319 --> 00:01:46,800
Speaker 1: the Australian dot Com, dou David Charaz sent an inappropriate

23
00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:49,240
Speaker 1: message to the journalists who broke the story of his

24
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:54,280
Speaker 1: wife's alleged rape inside Parliament House. That's the latest evidence

25
00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:57,800
Speaker 1: in the defamation trial brought by Senator Linda Reynolds against

26
00:01:57,800 --> 00:02:01,920
Speaker 1: her former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins. The court also heard

27
00:02:02,000 --> 00:02:06,480
Speaker 1: Higgins telling Maiden Linda Reynolds avoided her like she was toxic.

28
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 1: In today's episode, our legal expert unpacks the strategy and

29
00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:28,000
Speaker 1: the chaos behind the scenes of this big trial. When

30
00:02:28,040 --> 00:02:31,280
Speaker 1: Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds brought her defamation action against her

31
00:02:31,320 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 1: former staff of Brittaney Higgins, she hoped this would finally

32
00:02:35,760 --> 00:02:39,000
Speaker 1: be her opportunity to face Higgins in a courtroom and

33
00:02:39,120 --> 00:02:43,480
Speaker 1: have a judge determined who was telling the truth. Britney Higgins,

34
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:46,400
Speaker 1: for her part, has made it crystal clear she does

35
00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:50,640
Speaker 1: not resile from her view that Linda Reynolds failed her.

36
00:02:51,600 --> 00:02:54,760
Speaker 1: In court. On Wednesday, journalist Samantha Maiden gave evidence about

37
00:02:54,760 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 1: an interview she did with Higgins in January twenty twenty one.

38
00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:02,959
Speaker 1: In that interview, Higgins said this about working in Reynolds's

39
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:06,160
Speaker 1: office we've used a voice actor to bring you the

40
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:07,600
Speaker 1: words aired in court.

41
00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:10,079
Speaker 4: She avoided me like I was toxic.

42
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 1: She hated me.

43
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:14,160
Speaker 4: She worked her entire life to finally get Minister of

44
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:16,680
Speaker 4: Defense and I was in her office for two weeks.

45
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:19,800
Speaker 4: Some little twitch she doesn't know, just gets assaulted in

46
00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:22,400
Speaker 4: her office and she hates it and she hates me.

47
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:25,799
Speaker 4: She still to this day hates having to.

48
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:26,280
Speaker 1: Be around me.

49
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:27,840
Speaker 4: They didn't care about me.

50
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:31,480
Speaker 1: Maidan also gave evidence about a text message she got

51
00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:34,359
Speaker 1: from David Charaz after she broke the story of Higgins's

52
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:38,520
Speaker 1: allegations in February twenty twenty one. Again, this is a

53
00:03:38,640 --> 00:03:39,240
Speaker 1: voice actor.

54
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:42,440
Speaker 5: What a fucking scoop hah.

55
00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:47,640
Speaker 1: Maiden said she thought Sharaz's message was inappropriate. She also

56
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:50,080
Speaker 1: told the Quarter about an interview with Reynolds, where Maiden

57
00:03:50,160 --> 00:03:53,120
Speaker 1: said she asked the senator if she believed Higgins was

58
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:56,680
Speaker 1: telling the truth or lying. Maiden said the senator replied,

59
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:02,920
Speaker 1: I don't know. I wasn't in the room. As the

60
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:06,120
Speaker 1: trial unfolds in the WA Supreme Court and the expensive

61
00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:09,880
Speaker 1: barrister's square off, Linda Reynolds shows up every day for

62
00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:13,440
Speaker 1: the fight she has brought on Brittany Higgins and her

63
00:04:13,520 --> 00:04:16,680
Speaker 1: husband David Schaaz have not yet appeared in court to

64
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:21,640
Speaker 1: sit behind their barrister, Rachel Young sc and now Brittaney

65
00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:25,640
Speaker 1: Higgins is indicated she won't show up at all. JP

66
00:04:25,880 --> 00:04:28,800
Speaker 1: Cashen is a defamation law specialist and a partner with

67
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: law firm Thompson Gear. They work with the Australian JP

68
00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:36,279
Speaker 1: put this trial in a bit of context for me,

69
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:38,720
Speaker 1: how big is this one when it comes to defamation

70
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:39,599
Speaker 1: law in Australia.

71
00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:44,320
Speaker 6: It's big. It's not as lundmark as the case before

72
00:04:44,440 --> 00:04:47,200
Speaker 6: Justice Lee was. That case really was landmark in the

73
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:49,839
Speaker 6: sense that it was deciding a rape case on the

74
00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:52,400
Speaker 6: civil standard of proof, which we really hadn't seen before.

75
00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:55,760
Speaker 6: This one is more run of the mill in terms

76
00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 6: of the defamation concepts being applied and being determined. But

77
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:02,520
Speaker 6: obviously the gravity of it is just enormous, given the

78
00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:05,919
Speaker 6: players involved, given it's Linda Reynolds and Britney Higgins, and

79
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:08,200
Speaker 6: I think it's one that will go down in history

80
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:09,840
Speaker 6: regardless of what the outcome is.

81
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,880
Speaker 1: Thompson Gear works with many major media organizations and some

82
00:05:14,960 --> 00:05:18,799
Speaker 1: of JP's colleagues represented Network ten in the Bruce Lemmon

83
00:05:18,839 --> 00:05:22,120
Speaker 1: defamation case in the Federal Court earlier this year, but

84
00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:25,840
Speaker 1: they're not engaged in the matter presently before the WA

85
00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:30,559
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Linda Reynolds is the plaintiff in this matter,

86
00:05:30,640 --> 00:05:33,360
Speaker 1: and she's suing over a series of social media posts

87
00:05:33,480 --> 00:05:36,640
Speaker 1: made by Higgins and her now husband, Charraz in early

88
00:05:36,720 --> 00:05:39,679
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. We've used voice actors.

89
00:05:41,040 --> 00:05:43,919
Speaker 4: This is from a current Australian senator who continues to

90
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:47,080
Speaker 4: harass me through the media and in the parliament. My

91
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:51,479
Speaker 4: former boss, who has publicly apologized for mishandling my rape allegation,

92
00:05:52,279 --> 00:05:55,440
Speaker 4: who has had to apologize publicly after defending me in

93
00:05:55,520 --> 00:05:59,360
Speaker 4: the workplace, who had a whole bunch of questionable conduct

94
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:03,120
Speaker 4: during my rape trial. She was suing my fiance for

95
00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:06,200
Speaker 4: a tweet. This has been going on for years now.

96
00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:07,560
Speaker 4: It is time to stop.

97
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,560
Speaker 5: There is a very real chance Linda Reynolds will be

98
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:14,520
Speaker 5: called to court this year to answer questions on her

99
00:06:14,560 --> 00:06:18,719
Speaker 5: involvement in Brittany Higgins. Feeling pressured by her office not

100
00:06:18,839 --> 00:06:22,080
Speaker 5: to continue with a complaint to police, she uploads this

101
00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 5: to her official website.

102
00:06:26,680 --> 00:06:30,800
Speaker 1: Linda Reynolds sc Martin Bennett, when he opened her case,

103
00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:34,800
Speaker 1: really outlined quite what seemed to me quite an ambitious case.

104
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:38,920
Speaker 1: They're arguing that there was a conspiracy between Brittany Higgins

105
00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:43,039
Speaker 1: and her husband David Chiraz to allege that Linda Reynolds

106
00:06:43,080 --> 00:06:46,039
Speaker 1: had failed in her duty of care to Britney Higgins.

107
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:49,839
Speaker 1: That seemed to me jp bigger than just alleging that

108
00:06:50,240 --> 00:06:53,760
Speaker 1: Brittney Higgins had said something that wasn't true. What did

109
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:57,240
Speaker 1: you make of that way of framing Linda Reynolds's case.

110
00:06:57,400 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, it is only part of

111
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:01,839
Speaker 6: the case. So the first thing that she has to

112
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:05,240
Speaker 6: do to win the case, Renolds, is to prove that

113
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,840
Speaker 6: Brittany said something and that it wasn't true, and that

114
00:07:08,839 --> 00:07:14,080
Speaker 6: there's no public interest basis for saying it. The conspiracy

115
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:18,760
Speaker 6: argument really comes in on the public interest side of things.

116
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 6: So she's really trying to head off an argument by

117
00:07:21,480 --> 00:07:25,440
Speaker 6: Brittany that everything she said was part of an important

118
00:07:25,480 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 6: political discussion and that therefore it should be protected from

119
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:31,760
Speaker 6: the laws of defamation. And what Reynolds is trying to

120
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 6: do is to say, no, no, no, this wasn't some

121
00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:38,200
Speaker 6: legitimate discussion of a public interest matter. This was actually

122
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:41,960
Speaker 6: a private conspiracy between you and David Chiraz to try

123
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:44,920
Speaker 6: and get a political gain, and so she's really using

124
00:07:44,920 --> 00:07:46,840
Speaker 6: it to head off that side of the case, and

125
00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:48,800
Speaker 6: she also is trying to use it to increase any

126
00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:50,680
Speaker 6: damages that she might be able to get by saying

127
00:07:50,680 --> 00:07:55,040
Speaker 6: that they acted maliciously and unreasonably. So sort of only

128
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:57,200
Speaker 6: half of the case, but obviously a very important part

129
00:07:57,200 --> 00:07:57,440
Speaker 6: of it.

130
00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:00,680
Speaker 1: Now we're used to talking and you and I talk

131
00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:03,520
Speaker 1: about these things a lot cases where we might be

132
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:06,320
Speaker 1: trying to defend our journalism, and one of the defenses

133
00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:10,119
Speaker 1: that's available to us as a publisher is qualified privilege,

134
00:08:10,400 --> 00:08:13,640
Speaker 1: which involves demonstrating that our journalism was reasonable, we made

135
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:16,440
Speaker 1: reasonable attempts to contact the person we were writing about

136
00:08:16,520 --> 00:08:20,160
Speaker 1: and so on. Britney Higgins doesn't have that available to her,

137
00:08:20,520 --> 00:08:21,760
Speaker 1: or does she.

138
00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 6: She does have it available to her, Yeah, she does.

139
00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:28,480
Speaker 6: Because qualified privileges are very interesting defense. It's rarely successful

140
00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:33,240
Speaker 6: for defamation defendants. It's basically aimed at protecting certain types

141
00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:36,360
Speaker 6: of speech and saying that that speech should be protected

142
00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 6: from the usual defamation laws. If a parliamentarian stands up

143
00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:41,720
Speaker 6: in the floor of Parliament says something, the media can

144
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:44,960
Speaker 6: report what they said and that's protected in the same

145
00:08:44,960 --> 00:08:47,959
Speaker 6: way this week Peter Dutton was accused of being racist,

146
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:51,360
Speaker 6: and everyone reported on that everyone's protected because we're engaging

147
00:08:51,360 --> 00:08:55,040
Speaker 6: in that important aspect of public discussion about what happened

148
00:08:55,080 --> 00:08:58,439
Speaker 6: on the floor of Parliament. To win on qualified privilege,

149
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:00,920
Speaker 6: Britney would have to run a very similar argument to

150
00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:04,199
Speaker 6: say that this is an important issue of public interest.

151
00:09:04,280 --> 00:09:07,160
Speaker 6: It related to rape, it related to rape in parliament House,

152
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:10,520
Speaker 6: it related to the treatment of her by a sitting

153
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 6: member of Parliament, and it's such an important public interest

154
00:09:14,400 --> 00:09:17,360
Speaker 6: discussion that she doesn't have to prove it's true. She

155
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,000
Speaker 6: just has to prove that what she said was reasonable

156
00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:22,200
Speaker 6: in the circumstances, and she's relying on that.

157
00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 1: Coming up. Could the absence of Brittney Higgins and David

158
00:09:29,480 --> 00:09:49,559
Speaker 1: Charaz hurt their defense. That's after the break before this trial,

159
00:09:49,640 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: David Charaz indicated he no longer had the money or

160
00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:56,040
Speaker 1: energy to fight Linda Reynolds anymore. Britney Higgins has told

161
00:09:56,080 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 1: the court via her senior council Rachel Young sc that

162
00:09:58,880 --> 00:10:02,360
Speaker 1: she's unwell and won't be attending court to give evidence

163
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:03,199
Speaker 1: as expected.

164
00:10:04,520 --> 00:10:04,800
Speaker 5: JP.

165
00:10:05,240 --> 00:10:07,800
Speaker 1: I've never heard of anything like that before in a

166
00:10:07,840 --> 00:10:10,240
Speaker 1: lot of years of covering court matters, have you.

167
00:10:10,960 --> 00:10:13,280
Speaker 6: It doesn't happen very often. Usually that will get figured

168
00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:16,520
Speaker 6: out much earlier in the piece. Someone will roll over

169
00:10:16,640 --> 00:10:19,480
Speaker 6: in an early mediation or a plentiful figure out they

170
00:10:19,520 --> 00:10:21,920
Speaker 6: don't have any money, and they'll get judgment against them

171
00:10:21,920 --> 00:10:24,720
Speaker 6: pretty early. I think here it's quite unique because you

172
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:29,560
Speaker 6: have Brittany obviously proceeding with the case and David not.

173
00:10:30,280 --> 00:10:33,240
Speaker 1: So the question I'm wondering JPS, are we seeing some

174
00:10:33,280 --> 00:10:36,559
Speaker 1: sort of acts of tactical genius here by Rachel youngesc

175
00:10:36,559 --> 00:10:39,640
Speaker 1: and not bringing these two people to court, or has

176
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:41,200
Speaker 1: she lost control of her clients?

177
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:46,480
Speaker 6: I doubt it's a huge tactical play. Mostly, you want

178
00:10:46,520 --> 00:10:48,280
Speaker 6: to put on as much evidence as you can. You

179
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:50,560
Speaker 6: know your case is generally stronger the more evidence you

180
00:10:50,600 --> 00:10:52,840
Speaker 6: put on. So I suspect if they felt that they

181
00:10:52,880 --> 00:10:57,480
Speaker 6: could call Brittany, they would. We know that she wasn't

182
00:10:57,640 --> 00:11:00,440
Speaker 6: fit and able to give evidence in the second criminal trial.

183
00:11:00,800 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 6: We know that she's now pregnant and she has to

184
00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:06,240
Speaker 6: travel her health is obviously there's a lot at stake there,

185
00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:08,560
Speaker 6: So I'm certainly willing to accept at face value that

186
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:11,520
Speaker 6: she's not able to give evidence. But I think the

187
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:13,520
Speaker 6: case would be stronger with her. That doesn't mean to

188
00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:15,760
Speaker 6: say that they couldn't win the case without Brittany.

189
00:11:16,200 --> 00:11:18,839
Speaker 1: Yeah, what are the implications for a defendant if they

190
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:20,400
Speaker 1: just decline to give evidence.

191
00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:23,760
Speaker 6: It's worth noting that Rachel Young handed up a confidential

192
00:11:24,040 --> 00:11:27,840
Speaker 6: medical report, which we haven't seen but we understand outlines

193
00:11:27,920 --> 00:11:32,200
Speaker 6: some very serious medical issues that Brittany's experiencing. That is

194
00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:36,640
Speaker 6: probably aimed at a submission that Brittany should not be

195
00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:39,920
Speaker 6: punished for not appearing to give evidence. In many cases,

196
00:11:39,920 --> 00:11:41,800
Speaker 6: if you choose not to put evidence on that can

197
00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:44,679
Speaker 6: be held against you, a court can draw an adverse

198
00:11:44,720 --> 00:11:47,160
Speaker 6: inference against you and say, well, you could have put

199
00:11:47,160 --> 00:11:49,240
Speaker 6: that evidence on, you've chosen not to. I'm going to

200
00:11:49,240 --> 00:11:51,160
Speaker 6: assume that that wouldn't have helped you, or it might

201
00:11:51,160 --> 00:11:53,560
Speaker 6: have been bad for you. But if there's a good

202
00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:57,319
Speaker 6: reason for a witness not appearing, then the court won't

203
00:11:57,320 --> 00:11:59,760
Speaker 6: hold those adverse inferences against you, And I suspect that

204
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:02,160
Speaker 6: that what that submission is aimed at. At the end

205
00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:04,760
Speaker 6: of the trial, they will presumably say that shouldn't be

206
00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:05,640
Speaker 6: held against Britney.

207
00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 1: Yeah, so would you expect to see Rachel Young then

208
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:13,640
Speaker 1: putting on submissions including basically Britney Higgins's opinion or memories

209
00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:16,520
Speaker 1: recollections of what she would have said if she had

210
00:12:16,559 --> 00:12:18,320
Speaker 1: been in court to give evidence.

211
00:12:18,760 --> 00:12:21,079
Speaker 6: If you don't make a witness available for cross examination,

212
00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:24,920
Speaker 6: it's very difficult to rely on their evidence. But in

213
00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:27,520
Speaker 6: this case, there's a lot of other satellite evidence that

214
00:12:27,600 --> 00:12:30,199
Speaker 6: they can rely on. We know there's a lot of contemporaries,

215
00:12:30,280 --> 00:12:34,160
Speaker 6: text messages and WhatsApps, and there's other witnesses who interacted

216
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:36,640
Speaker 6: with Brittany at the time. I think they intend to

217
00:12:36,640 --> 00:12:40,280
Speaker 6: call an AFP assistant commissioner who interacted with Brittany. I

218
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:42,440
Speaker 6: think journalist Samantha Maiden is going to be called, and

219
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:46,199
Speaker 6: there might well be others. So they can still establish

220
00:12:46,240 --> 00:12:49,640
Speaker 6: their case about what Brittany was feeling, what she was

221
00:12:49,679 --> 00:12:54,000
Speaker 6: experiencing around the time of the rape allegations, and all

222
00:12:54,000 --> 00:12:56,640
Speaker 6: of that is legitimate evidence. They'll be missing that extra

223
00:12:56,679 --> 00:12:58,960
Speaker 6: piece of Britney giving her first hand accounts of it,

224
00:12:59,280 --> 00:13:01,960
Speaker 6: but they still have have other evidence to fill those gaps.

225
00:13:06,400 --> 00:13:09,920
Speaker 6: It's amazing how a case can change based on one

226
00:13:10,160 --> 00:13:13,319
Speaker 6: witness doing really well or one witness doing really badly.

227
00:13:13,400 --> 00:13:15,560
Speaker 6: So I think for me, the jury is out, so

228
00:13:15,640 --> 00:13:17,040
Speaker 6: to speak, until we see that evidence.

229
00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:20,040
Speaker 1: One of the issues at this trial has been a

230
00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:24,680
Speaker 1: so called protective trust that Brittaney Higgins created after winning

231
00:13:24,720 --> 00:13:27,520
Speaker 1: a two point four million dollar payout from the Commonwealth.

232
00:13:28,040 --> 00:13:31,319
Speaker 1: I ask JP if that will limit Linda Reynold's opportunity

233
00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:34,360
Speaker 1: to get any damages if indeed she does win.

234
00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:36,480
Speaker 6: I suspect they would be able to get their hands

235
00:13:36,520 --> 00:13:39,120
Speaker 6: on the money one way or another. It's been very public.

236
00:13:39,160 --> 00:13:41,760
Speaker 6: The fact that she's received that money and shifting it

237
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:46,040
Speaker 6: around will not usually be enough to prevent you from

238
00:13:46,040 --> 00:13:49,200
Speaker 6: having to pay the damages award. So I think Brittany

239
00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:51,920
Speaker 6: would be very much feeling that she's at financial risk

240
00:13:52,040 --> 00:13:53,160
Speaker 6: as a result of this case.

241
00:13:57,640 --> 00:14:03,280
Speaker 1: John Paul Cashion is a partner with Thompson Gear. The

242
00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:07,440
Speaker 1: Australian is in court every day of this blockbuster defamation trial.

243
00:14:07,760 --> 00:14:10,840
Speaker 1: You can read our in depth reporting and analysis anytime

244
00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:13,240
Speaker 1: at The Australian dot com dot au