WEBVTT - Can Brittany Higgins win from here?

0:00:06.040 --> 0:00:08.400
<v Speaker 1>You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker

0:00:08.520 --> 0:00:12.680
<v Speaker 1>every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play

0:00:12.680 --> 0:00:23.360
<v Speaker 1>the news from the Australian. From the Australian, Here's what's

0:00:23.360 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 1>on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Thursday, August twenty two.

0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:33.559
<v Speaker 1>Politicians will face fines for bad behavior in the workplace

0:00:33.680 --> 0:00:37.080
<v Speaker 1>under new legislation introduced by the government, including a new

0:00:37.159 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 1>code that threatens having paidoct by more than eleven thousand dollars.

0:00:44.040 --> 0:00:47.400
<v Speaker 1>Barack and Michelle Obama have given Kamala Harris their full

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>throated endorsement at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Michelle,

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:53.880
<v Speaker 1>talk tough.

0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:58.440
<v Speaker 2>We only have two and a half months, y'all to

0:00:58.520 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 2>get this done. So we cannot afford for anyone, anyone,

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:08.720
<v Speaker 2>anyone America to sit on their hands and wait to

0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:13.400
<v Speaker 2>be called. There is simply no time for that kind

0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:14.280
<v Speaker 2>of foolishness.

0:01:15.720 --> 0:01:18.560
<v Speaker 1>And Barack went for Donald Trump.

0:01:19.040 --> 0:01:23.640
<v Speaker 3>We do not need four more years a bluster and

0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:28.920
<v Speaker 3>bumbling and chaos. We have seen that movie before and

0:01:29.000 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 3>we all know that the sequel is usually worse.

0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 1>We've got the best coverage of American politics, from Life

0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Reporting to the Sharpest Analysis twenty four to seven at

0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 1>the Australian dot Com, dou David Charaz sent an inappropriate

0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:49.240
<v Speaker 1>message to the journalists who broke the story of his

0:01:49.360 --> 0:01:54.280
<v Speaker 1>wife's alleged rape inside Parliament House. That's the latest evidence

0:01:54.280 --> 0:01:57.800
<v Speaker 1>in the defamation trial brought by Senator Linda Reynolds against

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:01.920
<v Speaker 1>her former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins. The court also heard

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Higgins telling Maiden Linda Reynolds avoided her like she was toxic.

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:11.480
<v Speaker 1>In today's episode, our legal expert unpacks the strategy and

0:02:11.639 --> 0:02:28.000
<v Speaker 1>the chaos behind the scenes of this big trial. When

0:02:28.040 --> 0:02:31.280
<v Speaker 1>Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds brought her defamation action against her

0:02:31.320 --> 0:02:35.440
<v Speaker 1>former staff of Brittaney Higgins, she hoped this would finally

0:02:35.760 --> 0:02:39.000
<v Speaker 1>be her opportunity to face Higgins in a courtroom and

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:43.480
<v Speaker 1>have a judge determined who was telling the truth. Britney Higgins,

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:46.400
<v Speaker 1>for her part, has made it crystal clear she does

0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:50.640
<v Speaker 1>not resile from her view that Linda Reynolds failed her.

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:54.760
<v Speaker 1>In court. On Wednesday, journalist Samantha Maiden gave evidence about

0:02:54.760 --> 0:02:58.600
<v Speaker 1>an interview she did with Higgins in January twenty twenty one.

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:02.959
<v Speaker 1>In that interview, Higgins said this about working in Reynolds's

0:03:03.040 --> 0:03:06.160
<v Speaker 1>office we've used a voice actor to bring you the

0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 1>words aired in court.

0:03:08.360 --> 0:03:10.079
<v Speaker 4>She avoided me like I was toxic.

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:11.160
<v Speaker 1>She hated me.

0:03:11.680 --> 0:03:14.160
<v Speaker 4>She worked her entire life to finally get Minister of

0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:16.680
<v Speaker 4>Defense and I was in her office for two weeks.

0:03:17.000 --> 0:03:19.800
<v Speaker 4>Some little twitch she doesn't know, just gets assaulted in

0:03:19.840 --> 0:03:22.400
<v Speaker 4>her office and she hates it and she hates me.

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:25.799
<v Speaker 4>She still to this day hates having to.

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:26.280
<v Speaker 1>Be around me.

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:27.840
<v Speaker 4>They didn't care about me.

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:31.480
<v Speaker 1>Maidan also gave evidence about a text message she got

0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:34.359
<v Speaker 1>from David Charaz after she broke the story of Higgins's

0:03:34.400 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 1>allegations in February twenty twenty one. Again, this is a

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:39.240
<v Speaker 1>voice actor.

0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:42.440
<v Speaker 5>What a fucking scoop hah.

0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>Maiden said she thought Sharaz's message was inappropriate. She also

0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:50.080
<v Speaker 1>told the Quarter about an interview with Reynolds, where Maiden

0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:53.120
<v Speaker 1>said she asked the senator if she believed Higgins was

0:03:53.160 --> 0:03:56.680
<v Speaker 1>telling the truth or lying. Maiden said the senator replied,

0:03:56.880 --> 0:04:02.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I wasn't in the room. As the

0:04:02.960 --> 0:04:06.120
<v Speaker 1>trial unfolds in the WA Supreme Court and the expensive

0:04:06.160 --> 0:04:09.880
<v Speaker 1>barrister's square off, Linda Reynolds shows up every day for

0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:13.440
<v Speaker 1>the fight she has brought on Brittany Higgins and her

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:16.680
<v Speaker 1>husband David Schaaz have not yet appeared in court to

0:04:16.760 --> 0:04:21.640
<v Speaker 1>sit behind their barrister, Rachel Young sc and now Brittaney

0:04:21.720 --> 0:04:25.640
<v Speaker 1>Higgins is indicated she won't show up at all. JP

0:04:25.880 --> 0:04:28.800
<v Speaker 1>Cashen is a defamation law specialist and a partner with

0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>law firm Thompson Gear. They work with the Australian JP

0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:36.279
<v Speaker 1>put this trial in a bit of context for me,

0:04:36.480 --> 0:04:38.720
<v Speaker 1>how big is this one when it comes to defamation

0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:39.599
<v Speaker 1>law in Australia.

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:44.320
<v Speaker 6>It's big. It's not as lundmark as the case before

0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:47.200
<v Speaker 6>Justice Lee was. That case really was landmark in the

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:49.839
<v Speaker 6>sense that it was deciding a rape case on the

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:52.400
<v Speaker 6>civil standard of proof, which we really hadn't seen before.

0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 6>This one is more run of the mill in terms

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:59.400
<v Speaker 6>of the defamation concepts being applied and being determined. But

0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:02.520
<v Speaker 6>obviously the gravity of it is just enormous, given the

0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:05.919
<v Speaker 6>players involved, given it's Linda Reynolds and Britney Higgins, and

0:05:06.400 --> 0:05:08.200
<v Speaker 6>I think it's one that will go down in history

0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:09.840
<v Speaker 6>regardless of what the outcome is.

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:14.880
<v Speaker 1>Thompson Gear works with many major media organizations and some

0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:18.799
<v Speaker 1>of JP's colleagues represented Network ten in the Bruce Lemmon

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.120
<v Speaker 1>defamation case in the Federal Court earlier this year, but

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:25.840
<v Speaker 1>they're not engaged in the matter presently before the WA

0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:30.559
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. Linda Reynolds is the plaintiff in this matter,

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:33.360
<v Speaker 1>and she's suing over a series of social media posts

0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:36.640
<v Speaker 1>made by Higgins and her now husband, Charraz in early

0:05:36.720 --> 0:05:39.679
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty three. We've used voice actors.

0:05:41.040 --> 0:05:43.919
<v Speaker 4>This is from a current Australian senator who continues to

0:05:44.000 --> 0:05:47.080
<v Speaker 4>harass me through the media and in the parliament. My

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:51.479
<v Speaker 4>former boss, who has publicly apologized for mishandling my rape allegation,

0:05:52.279 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 4>who has had to apologize publicly after defending me in

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:59.360
<v Speaker 4>the workplace, who had a whole bunch of questionable conduct

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:03.120
<v Speaker 4>during my rape trial. She was suing my fiance for

0:06:03.160 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 4>a tweet. This has been going on for years now.

0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:07.560
<v Speaker 4>It is time to stop.

0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:11.560
<v Speaker 5>There is a very real chance Linda Reynolds will be

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 5>called to court this year to answer questions on her

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:18.719
<v Speaker 5>involvement in Brittany Higgins. Feeling pressured by her office not

0:06:18.839 --> 0:06:22.080
<v Speaker 5>to continue with a complaint to police, she uploads this

0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:25.640
<v Speaker 5>to her official website.

0:06:26.680 --> 0:06:30.800
<v Speaker 1>Linda Reynolds sc Martin Bennett, when he opened her case,

0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:34.800
<v Speaker 1>really outlined quite what seemed to me quite an ambitious case.

0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:38.920
<v Speaker 1>They're arguing that there was a conspiracy between Brittany Higgins

0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:43.039
<v Speaker 1>and her husband David Chiraz to allege that Linda Reynolds

0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:46.039
<v Speaker 1>had failed in her duty of care to Britney Higgins.

0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:49.839
<v Speaker 1>That seemed to me jp bigger than just alleging that

0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>Brittney Higgins had said something that wasn't true. What did

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:57.240
<v Speaker 1>you make of that way of framing Linda Reynolds's case.

0:06:57.400 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, it is only part of

0:06:59.560 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 6>the case. So the first thing that she has to

0:07:01.880 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 6>do to win the case, Renolds, is to prove that

0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:08.840
<v Speaker 6>Brittany said something and that it wasn't true, and that

0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:14.080
<v Speaker 6>there's no public interest basis for saying it. The conspiracy

0:07:14.200 --> 0:07:18.760
<v Speaker 6>argument really comes in on the public interest side of things.

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 6>So she's really trying to head off an argument by

0:07:21.480 --> 0:07:25.440
<v Speaker 6>Brittany that everything she said was part of an important

0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:29.280
<v Speaker 6>political discussion and that therefore it should be protected from

0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 6>the laws of defamation. And what Reynolds is trying to

0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:34.480
<v Speaker 6>do is to say, no, no, no, this wasn't some

0:07:34.760 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 6>legitimate discussion of a public interest matter. This was actually

0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:41.960
<v Speaker 6>a private conspiracy between you and David Chiraz to try

0:07:42.000 --> 0:07:44.920
<v Speaker 6>and get a political gain, and so she's really using

0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:46.840
<v Speaker 6>it to head off that side of the case, and

0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:48.800
<v Speaker 6>she also is trying to use it to increase any

0:07:48.840 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 6>damages that she might be able to get by saying

0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:55.040
<v Speaker 6>that they acted maliciously and unreasonably. So sort of only

0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:57.200
<v Speaker 6>half of the case, but obviously a very important part

0:07:57.200 --> 0:07:57.440
<v Speaker 6>of it.

0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Now we're used to talking and you and I talk

0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:03.520
<v Speaker 1>about these things a lot cases where we might be

0:08:03.720 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 1>trying to defend our journalism, and one of the defenses

0:08:06.360 --> 0:08:10.119
<v Speaker 1>that's available to us as a publisher is qualified privilege,

0:08:10.400 --> 0:08:13.640
<v Speaker 1>which involves demonstrating that our journalism was reasonable, we made

0:08:13.680 --> 0:08:16.440
<v Speaker 1>reasonable attempts to contact the person we were writing about

0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:20.160
<v Speaker 1>and so on. Britney Higgins doesn't have that available to her,

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:21.760
<v Speaker 1>or does she.

0:08:21.760 --> 0:08:23.800
<v Speaker 6>She does have it available to her, Yeah, she does.

0:08:23.840 --> 0:08:28.480
<v Speaker 6>Because qualified privileges are very interesting defense. It's rarely successful

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:33.240
<v Speaker 6>for defamation defendants. It's basically aimed at protecting certain types

0:08:33.240 --> 0:08:36.360
<v Speaker 6>of speech and saying that that speech should be protected

0:08:36.360 --> 0:08:39.520
<v Speaker 6>from the usual defamation laws. If a parliamentarian stands up

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:41.720
<v Speaker 6>in the floor of Parliament says something, the media can

0:08:41.760 --> 0:08:44.960
<v Speaker 6>report what they said and that's protected in the same

0:08:44.960 --> 0:08:47.959
<v Speaker 6>way this week Peter Dutton was accused of being racist,

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:51.360
<v Speaker 6>and everyone reported on that everyone's protected because we're engaging

0:08:51.360 --> 0:08:55.040
<v Speaker 6>in that important aspect of public discussion about what happened

0:08:55.080 --> 0:08:58.439
<v Speaker 6>on the floor of Parliament. To win on qualified privilege,

0:08:58.440 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 6>Britney would have to run a very similar argument to

0:09:00.960 --> 0:09:04.199
<v Speaker 6>say that this is an important issue of public interest.

0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:07.160
<v Speaker 6>It related to rape, it related to rape in parliament House,

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:10.520
<v Speaker 6>it related to the treatment of her by a sitting

0:09:10.880 --> 0:09:14.120
<v Speaker 6>member of Parliament, and it's such an important public interest

0:09:14.400 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 6>discussion that she doesn't have to prove it's true. She

0:09:17.520 --> 0:09:20.000
<v Speaker 6>just has to prove that what she said was reasonable

0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:22.200
<v Speaker 6>in the circumstances, and she's relying on that.

0:09:26.280 --> 0:09:29.440
<v Speaker 1>Coming up. Could the absence of Brittney Higgins and David

0:09:29.480 --> 0:09:49.559
<v Speaker 1>Charaz hurt their defense. That's after the break before this trial,

0:09:49.640 --> 0:09:52.120
<v Speaker 1>David Charaz indicated he no longer had the money or

0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:56.040
<v Speaker 1>energy to fight Linda Reynolds anymore. Britney Higgins has told

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:58.760
<v Speaker 1>the court via her senior council Rachel Young sc that

0:09:58.880 --> 0:10:02.360
<v Speaker 1>she's unwell and won't be attending court to give evidence

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:03.199
<v Speaker 1>as expected.

0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:04.800
<v Speaker 5>JP.

0:10:05.240 --> 0:10:07.800
<v Speaker 1>I've never heard of anything like that before in a

0:10:07.840 --> 0:10:10.240
<v Speaker 1>lot of years of covering court matters, have you.

0:10:10.960 --> 0:10:13.280
<v Speaker 6>It doesn't happen very often. Usually that will get figured

0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:16.520
<v Speaker 6>out much earlier in the piece. Someone will roll over

0:10:16.640 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 6>in an early mediation or a plentiful figure out they

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:21.920
<v Speaker 6>don't have any money, and they'll get judgment against them

0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:24.720
<v Speaker 6>pretty early. I think here it's quite unique because you

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:29.560
<v Speaker 6>have Brittany obviously proceeding with the case and David not.

0:10:30.280 --> 0:10:33.240
<v Speaker 1>So the question I'm wondering JPS, are we seeing some

0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:36.559
<v Speaker 1>sort of acts of tactical genius here by Rachel youngesc

0:10:36.559 --> 0:10:39.640
<v Speaker 1>and not bringing these two people to court, or has

0:10:39.679 --> 0:10:41.200
<v Speaker 1>she lost control of her clients?

0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:46.480
<v Speaker 6>I doubt it's a huge tactical play. Mostly, you want

0:10:46.520 --> 0:10:48.280
<v Speaker 6>to put on as much evidence as you can. You

0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:50.560
<v Speaker 6>know your case is generally stronger the more evidence you

0:10:50.600 --> 0:10:52.840
<v Speaker 6>put on. So I suspect if they felt that they

0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:57.480
<v Speaker 6>could call Brittany, they would. We know that she wasn't

0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:00.440
<v Speaker 6>fit and able to give evidence in the second criminal trial.

0:11:00.800 --> 0:11:02.920
<v Speaker 6>We know that she's now pregnant and she has to

0:11:02.960 --> 0:11:06.240
<v Speaker 6>travel her health is obviously there's a lot at stake there,

0:11:06.520 --> 0:11:08.560
<v Speaker 6>So I'm certainly willing to accept at face value that

0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:11.520
<v Speaker 6>she's not able to give evidence. But I think the

0:11:11.559 --> 0:11:13.520
<v Speaker 6>case would be stronger with her. That doesn't mean to

0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:15.760
<v Speaker 6>say that they couldn't win the case without Brittany.

0:11:16.200 --> 0:11:18.839
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, what are the implications for a defendant if they

0:11:18.960 --> 0:11:20.400
<v Speaker 1>just decline to give evidence.

0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:23.760
<v Speaker 6>It's worth noting that Rachel Young handed up a confidential

0:11:24.040 --> 0:11:27.840
<v Speaker 6>medical report, which we haven't seen but we understand outlines

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:32.200
<v Speaker 6>some very serious medical issues that Brittany's experiencing. That is

0:11:32.280 --> 0:11:36.640
<v Speaker 6>probably aimed at a submission that Brittany should not be

0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:39.920
<v Speaker 6>punished for not appearing to give evidence. In many cases,

0:11:39.920 --> 0:11:41.800
<v Speaker 6>if you choose not to put evidence on that can

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:44.679
<v Speaker 6>be held against you, a court can draw an adverse

0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:47.160
<v Speaker 6>inference against you and say, well, you could have put

0:11:47.160 --> 0:11:49.240
<v Speaker 6>that evidence on, you've chosen not to. I'm going to

0:11:49.240 --> 0:11:51.160
<v Speaker 6>assume that that wouldn't have helped you, or it might

0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:53.560
<v Speaker 6>have been bad for you. But if there's a good

0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:57.319
<v Speaker 6>reason for a witness not appearing, then the court won't

0:11:57.320 --> 0:11:59.760
<v Speaker 6>hold those adverse inferences against you, And I suspect that

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 6>that what that submission is aimed at. At the end

0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:04.760
<v Speaker 6>of the trial, they will presumably say that shouldn't be

0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:05.640
<v Speaker 6>held against Britney.

0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:09.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so would you expect to see Rachel Young then

0:12:09.080 --> 0:12:13.640
<v Speaker 1>putting on submissions including basically Britney Higgins's opinion or memories

0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:16.520
<v Speaker 1>recollections of what she would have said if she had

0:12:16.559 --> 0:12:18.320
<v Speaker 1>been in court to give evidence.

0:12:18.760 --> 0:12:21.079
<v Speaker 6>If you don't make a witness available for cross examination,

0:12:21.240 --> 0:12:24.920
<v Speaker 6>it's very difficult to rely on their evidence. But in

0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:27.520
<v Speaker 6>this case, there's a lot of other satellite evidence that

0:12:27.600 --> 0:12:30.199
<v Speaker 6>they can rely on. We know there's a lot of contemporaries,

0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:34.160
<v Speaker 6>text messages and WhatsApps, and there's other witnesses who interacted

0:12:34.160 --> 0:12:36.640
<v Speaker 6>with Brittany at the time. I think they intend to

0:12:36.640 --> 0:12:40.280
<v Speaker 6>call an AFP assistant commissioner who interacted with Brittany. I

0:12:40.320 --> 0:12:42.440
<v Speaker 6>think journalist Samantha Maiden is going to be called, and

0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:46.199
<v Speaker 6>there might well be others. So they can still establish

0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:49.640
<v Speaker 6>their case about what Brittany was feeling, what she was

0:12:49.679 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 6>experiencing around the time of the rape allegations, and all

0:12:54.000 --> 0:12:56.640
<v Speaker 6>of that is legitimate evidence. They'll be missing that extra

0:12:56.679 --> 0:12:58.960
<v Speaker 6>piece of Britney giving her first hand accounts of it,

0:12:59.280 --> 0:13:01.960
<v Speaker 6>but they still have have other evidence to fill those gaps.

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:09.920
<v Speaker 6>It's amazing how a case can change based on one

0:13:10.160 --> 0:13:13.319
<v Speaker 6>witness doing really well or one witness doing really badly.

0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:15.560
<v Speaker 6>So I think for me, the jury is out, so

0:13:15.640 --> 0:13:17.040
<v Speaker 6>to speak, until we see that evidence.

0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:20.040
<v Speaker 1>One of the issues at this trial has been a

0:13:20.120 --> 0:13:24.680
<v Speaker 1>so called protective trust that Brittaney Higgins created after winning

0:13:24.720 --> 0:13:27.520
<v Speaker 1>a two point four million dollar payout from the Commonwealth.

0:13:28.040 --> 0:13:31.319
<v Speaker 1>I ask JP if that will limit Linda Reynold's opportunity

0:13:31.400 --> 0:13:34.360
<v Speaker 1>to get any damages if indeed she does win.

0:13:34.880 --> 0:13:36.480
<v Speaker 6>I suspect they would be able to get their hands

0:13:36.520 --> 0:13:39.120
<v Speaker 6>on the money one way or another. It's been very public.

0:13:39.160 --> 0:13:41.760
<v Speaker 6>The fact that she's received that money and shifting it

0:13:41.800 --> 0:13:46.040
<v Speaker 6>around will not usually be enough to prevent you from

0:13:46.040 --> 0:13:49.200
<v Speaker 6>having to pay the damages award. So I think Brittany

0:13:49.240 --> 0:13:51.920
<v Speaker 6>would be very much feeling that she's at financial risk

0:13:52.040 --> 0:13:53.160
<v Speaker 6>as a result of this case.

0:13:57.640 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 1>John Paul Cashion is a partner with Thompson Gear. The

0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:07.440
<v Speaker 1>Australian is in court every day of this blockbuster defamation trial.

0:14:07.760 --> 0:14:10.840
<v Speaker 1>You can read our in depth reporting and analysis anytime

0:14:11.000 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 1>at The Australian dot com dot au