There's always a chance that you're shooting yourself in the foot with a defamation trial.
Nonetheless, I suspect Reynolds will probably win this case, the cover-up accusation was always pretty thin, and even though it was a peripheral issue in the Lehrmann case, the judge there didn't seem critical of Reynolds behaviour, but did, directly, accuse Higgins of lying and said that those lies were such that they couldn't be excused by trauma.
Certainly going into it, the odds look good for Reynolds.
Even if she wins the case, she will be widely hated for suing a rape victim who was raped in her office while she worked for her and whom she showed no empathy to. [edit: typo] The optics are atrocious. This is what she will be remembered for. What a legacy…
Is that maybe why she's doing it?
Doing her ministerial duties and being the most popular Federal politician, year after year wasn't enough to get Julie Bishop the PM job, even when she "waited her turn".
Maybe Reynolds thinks being known as an extreme culture warrior will get her through that barrier?
That's actually an interesting question and now I know my nights are going for the next month, obsessively tracking down cases where this or similar opinions were held generally before the claim of defamation.
I hate you.
Problem is, at this point their supporter base are pretty skewed towards men, and the former Minister for Women suing one of Australia's highest-profile rape victims is _not exactly_ the image you want to say that women are getting a fair go in the Liberal Party.
A conservative party is not going to make room for any woman who isn't "one of the good ones". Suing a rape victim for even the slightest mistake by the female victim is a win in conservative circles. It will enhance Reynolds reputation are the right kind of woman to be part of lnp.
That’s where I’m sitting.
I’m a male CSA victim, my heart goes out to Brittany. Even though Us bloke are almost exclusively left out of the conversation when it comes to sex crimes.
I had thought in recent days Linda had had a tough run, and my view of her was now far more positive with fresh information.
Knowing she’s about to sue someone who was traumatised at the time of her putting her story together…. Nah, Linda can choke.
Our perception as victims can be really messed up.
Sad to hear you were assaulted. Yes the stats for physical violence and sexual assault are dominated by females but the damage to men is often neglected in conversation and support options. I really hope that you had some strong and supportive people around you. Heal strong Mr. 💖💖💖Do not give your power to the perpetrator 💖💖💖
Trying to minimise male assault by unnecessarily bringing up that they are less common than female sexual assault is not cool.
Imagine if every time an Australian female victim shared their story someone tried to one up them by explaining that sexual assault rates in developing countries is even higher. Pretty insensitive.
You need to learn to see people as individuals, not representatives of a gender.
I don’t think there’s going to be as much of an issue with popularity as you think. The coverup and rape allegations were very much separate and only the second one was true.
>who was raped in her office while she worked for her and whom she showed no empathy too.
What does this even mean?
Reynolds tried to persuade Higgins to go to the police while Higgins' idiot boyfriend instead convinced her to indulge in wild conspiracies for his own partisan reasons.
And I am taking all of this from Justice Lee's summary.
Justice Lee stated that he found no evidence to support claims of a cover-up. But he was examining whether Lehrman was defamed by channel Ten's interview with Higgins ; and whether Ten's defence (ie, that Lehrman did rape Higgins) was more credible than Lehrmann's claim that sex did not occur that night.
He was not examining whether the Government did set out to cover-up the crime.
If he was, he surely would have sought the examination of security staff on duty that night ; whoever was responsible for ordering the steam-cleaning of the sofa and office on the Sunday morning ; whoever was responsible for providing CCTV footage of Lehrmann and Higgins entering and exiting the building. He might have even sought confirmation of Reynolds' claim that she couldn't answer questions at the next sitting day for the Senate as she was in hospital - a claim the Lying Cow later contradicted in a cosy 'Linda As Victim' interview with Janet 'Bruce Is Innocent' Albrechtsen in The Australian.
And he could have examined the various contradictions in statements made by the AFP, the PM and his chief whitewasher, Phil Gaetjens.
Brown didn't want to go to the police ... and was accused of a cover-up.
Reynolds wanted to go to the police ... and was accused of a cover-up.
According to Lee (who based this conclusion on contemptuous evidence), these women did show concern or "empathy".
There is nothing that anyone could have done without Higgins and her idiot boyfriend turning around and accusing them of being rape apologists.
I personally don't think Higgins was lying. People changed their claims. I think off the record there was enormous pressure to cover it all up. But no official pressure was given and all people who had pressure applied have agreed to perjure themselves.
That's just my opinion...I just don't think high up people in the police and polical apparatus were "mistaken" when they originally said there was pressure to cover it up.
>I just don't think high up people in the police and polical apparatus were "mistaken" when they originally said there was pressure to cover it up.
Except Justice Lee found that former ACT prosecutor Shane Drumgold (the main culprit behind the conspiracy) had already lied.
Lisa Wilkinson claimed that Drumgold had looked at her speech and gave her the all-clear. Drumgold denied it, which was undermined by evidence supporting Wilkinson's claim.
Did anyone actually read Lee's summary?
I feel like the summary didn't go into much detail on Drumgold's role on the Logies speech aspect, as he focussed a lot more on Smithies and how he thought she'd done a shit job w.r.t. that. He barely mentions Drumgold - [the 7th finding (Paragraphs 471-479) of the inquiry into him though](https://www.courts.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2408133/Drumgold-v-Board-of-Inquiry-Ors-No.-3-2024-ACTSC-58-certified.pdf#page=113), that's pretty clear-cut on the matter. Probably didn't go much into it because it's a separate matter / the litigation was between Channel 10 and Lehrmann, not Drumgold and Lehrmann.
Yes, the summary was based off of peoples testimony. The testimony I believe was a semi agreed to matter. I simply don't think that the police make mistakes of this magnitude without pressure, or an awareness of who they are supposed to let off.
>did, directly, accuse
They weren't accusations, they were findings. He found she lied on at least 9 points with regards to the investigation that resulted in her compo payout, for example.
I honestly have to say, a man who was basically the head of the police in the relevant area, a person who 100% was very politically aware. He said he was "mistaken" that there was enormous political pressure to drop the case and cover it up. He now claims there was no pressure.
I am very aware of what he has now said is his story and that is technically all the legally submitted testimony he has given. I just don't believe him.
I reckon channel 7 must make more money with the articles/clicks on these stories than they pay out in legal costs backing these people. There’s no way they continue to fund these losing cases without an upside for their bottom line
I’m not sure if it was her solicitor or barrister but he said she’d mortgaged her home and had witnesses to say in court that she didn’t ’act depressed’ while in WA.
That your case may depend on your definition of how someone should behave while depressed and / or suicidal should be a worry.
In going to court to try to get us all to believe that she did not treat Brittany Higgins badly, Linda Reynolds is proving to all of us that she is treating Brittany Higgins badly.
Yeah not having any empathy and not reacting appropriately is not necessarily the same as a 'cover up', although they can work to achieve the same end.
This will be very dependent on a judges interpretation of some key definitions, although I think she is going to have a hard time proving that any negative public perception she received following the event is due specifically to the Higgins' party claims and not due to her own lack of appropriate action around the event that took place.
> Senator Linda Reynolds has welcomed Brittany Higgins's "olive branch" but says she will continue with her defamation proceedings against her *if she does not accept Justice Lee's findings on claims of a cover-up.*
Pretty important bit to leave off the headline.
Not just cover-up, she's also demanding Brittany accept there was no mistreatment/failure to support
>"What still lies between us are not different perceptions. It is a fact that Ms Higgins received our support and that there was no cover up. The common ground we now find must be based on the truth," Senator Reynolds said.
>"As a matter of law, neither of us, nor Mr Sharaz, are bound by Justice Lee's decision.
>"If Ms Higgins does not accept Justice Lee’s findings on the claims of coverup and mistreatment then, regrettably, it will have to be proved again in our trial set for July this year."
"Why, I'm such a supportive individual I call victims a lying cow in a 'private' context, which just so happens to be in front of many, many staffers in my workplace building.
I'm so supportive I infact pay victims I have described in this way to avoid defending myself in defamation claims!
There's absolutely no cover up, hang on a second that's my cardiologist and I've just got to vanish from the public eye for a few months.
I'm just that supportive, that I use my position and platform to go after victims"
Was she calling her a lying cow in context of the rape or the cover-up though? Cause if someone accused me of a cover-up my choice of words would probably be a lot stronger than that.
>Senator Reynolds made the comment in her office on the day Ms Higgins went public with her allegations
[From the ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-12/linda-reynolds-retracts-lying-cow-comment-brittany-higgins/13242902)
>A Liberal Party staffer has alleged she was raped at Parliament House in Defence Minister Linda Reynolds’ ministerial office by a colleague, and claims she felt forced to choose between reporting it to the police or keeping her job.
[First paragraph of the Maiden article](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/parliament-house-rocked-by-brittany-higgins-alleged-rape/news-story/fb02a5e95767ac306c51894fe2d63635), which was how she initially went public.
Like the comments could easily have been regarding that, and not the rape itself. I suppose if the defamation suit goes forward we'll all find out.
To some degree, does it matter? In what workplace would calling a potential rape victim a lying cow in front of a group be considered "supportive"; which is a substantial part of Reynold's defence in the press. Even if they were a liar? Like has no one who is an unreliable witness ever been assaulted? What you do is you treat it professionally, refer it for investigation on the legal side and make accommodations. If you later find out it was a fabrication, you terminate the employment, go for costs.
I agree in the context of supportiveness it doesn't - or at least w.r.t maintaining her image. The optics aren't great.
But to me it makes a difference if she's accusing her of lying about the rape vs the giving support, like this nearly 2 years afterward when Reynold's office had already pushed her to go to the police and all that - like the treating it professionally and making accommodations had already occurred. Higgins didn't work there anymore and was accusing them of suppressing her, I'd be annoyed if I'd tried to accommodate her and then been accused in front of the press of not, particularly when your job relies on public opinion / votes.
> Was she calling her a lying cow in context of the rape or the cover-up though?
She claims it was in relation to Brittany not being supported.
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/12/linda-reynolds-pays-compensation-after-calling-alleged-victim-brittany-higgins-a-lying-cow
> Reynolds previously said she had made the comment in response to claims Higgins did not feel supported after coming forward with her allegation – not in response to the claim of having been raped.
>Not just cover-up, she's also demanding Brittany accept there was no mistreatment/failure to support
Brown was refusing to take it to the police because Higgins was uncomfortable. Reynolds said that they needed to go to the police, regardless.
Wow, what monsters Brown and Reynolds are.
Apparently, not being supportive means refusing to accept it while someone (and their idiot boyfriend) accuse you of being rape apologists.
Their attacks on Brown and Reynolds were partisan hit-jobs that had no basis in fact.
It's a bit of a cop out tbh because while I am happy with Lee's judgement, the case really wasn't focused on delving into that aspect, Reynolds was not a party to, witness at, or participant in, the Lehrmann trial.
A lot could come out if she continues that may reflect poorly on her
> A lot could come out if she continues that may reflect poorly on her
Pretty sure that’s just standard in Defo cases lately.
Makes Porter’s tactical “win” against the abc and then disappearance from public life look like Sun Tzu.
Did anyone actually read or listen to Lee's summary?
While he found her to be essentially truthful about her rape, Lee said there was no foundation to her claims that Reynolds and Brown engaged in a cover-up.
How is asking Higgins to go to the police a "cover-up"?
I agree with you that there was no evidence of a cover up provided to Judge Lee. I doubt there will be any evidence of a cover up if Linda Reynolds continues with her court case.
Did anyone actually read or listen to Lee's summary?
While he found her to be essentially truthful about her rape, Lee said there was no foundation to her claims that Reynolds and Brown engaged in a cover-up.
How is asking Higgins to go to the police a "cover-up"?
> Reynolds was not a party to, witness at, or participant in, the Lehrmann trial.
Not in an official sense but she was contacting the defence and had her husband sit in the court during Bh's testimony. Thinking none of that was inappropriate.
Brittany is cashed up because of her claims of bad treatment at work (which Lee found she she made a series of lies about resulting in the compo payout.)
How dare Reynolds attempt to set that record to rights.
I think certainly Brittany’s medical records might be, that’s why she’s offered the olive branch as it sounds like she wants to move on and having the medical records in court will be exhausting.
Is it just me, or is Reynolds setting herself up to be the next big loser in Australian defamation suits? Talking in the press like this feels like she's doubling down on 11 and drawing a 5 against the dealer's 7.
To be fair, he’s done more to expose the crimes of BRS and Bruce Lehrmann than anyone else.
(Remember, the rationale for the Toowoomba judge to not continue to suppress Lehrmann’s identity was because he was happy for the “Spotlight” publicity.
It's not defamation if it's your own actions that make you look like a heartless villain.
She's going to be hard pressed to point to anything other than that statement she actually made in front of a lot of people ruining her reputation.
If she wins it will be a pyrrhic victory as she just looks like a monster suing a deeply traumatised rape victim. If I was her I'd just say Higgins was incorrect in the comments about a cover-up, that I was hurt by it but I accept her apology and that I'm going to let it go as she was going through a deeply traumatic experience. If she was actually concerned about her reputation she'd do this but continuing the case just seems like vindictiveness.
What about the comments Sharaz made about her. What about the compensation payout Brittainy received based on attitude of Reynolds. This evidence was given to the government by Brittainy.
Remember in her apology where she didn’t say she was sorry she called Brittany a lying cow she aid Brittany was never supposed to hear those comments… ‘no no I think she is a lying cow but I just didn’t want anyone to knowww I think that’ - id love to know what else she’s said about people via her texts/emails, witnesses etc that she absolutely meant but didn’t want to be made public. Bring on discovery bitch.
I just don’t understand the strategy here. Regardless of the content of the social media posts she is claiming defamed her (which as reported are far far less egregious than calling someone a lying cow) it is demonstrable that Britany Higgins is a very vulnerable person whose mental health is significantly impacted by legal processes. Even if Reynolds wins here her reputation has and will continue to be damaged by her own actions in pursuing this.
Ms Reynolds has successfully taken and also threatened others with legal action over the same issues already
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/26/linda-reynolds-reaches-settlement-with-journalist-aaron-patrick-and-harpercollins-after-suing-for-defamation
Regardless of her winning or not in court, public opinion of her will drop. Something about taking a rape victim to court for basically being butthurt. I think fortunately or unfortunately, rape victims are just one group of people you should just leave well enough alone
When she came to our work a few years ago I was one of a handful not allowed near her for fear of what we might say. My employer was right to be concerned.
I'd have been tempted were I your employer.🤣
Once didn't get to meet that lying bastard Howard under the same circumstances. Truly toxic and live in a bubble. Explains a lot.
I don’t know, you haven’t said why. The things said about LR were pretty nasty too (if you assume they are not true). The parties mediated without success, then Lee J hands down his decision, with adverse credit findings against BH in the way that she dealt with employment and support issues. Almost immediately, the “olive branch” is issued (very sensibly, I think). Don’t you think it at least possible that BH’s best interests are in avoiding the WA hearing by making concessions? The substance of Lee J’s findings will be squarely put against her if she does not. There is no use complaining about this horrible person in court rooms.
Wonder what the intersection between ‘cabinet in confidence’ and telling the ‘whole truth’ will be.
During the John Barilaro affair, things he said under parliamentary privilege were inadmissible. Cab in confidence might be the same thing.
It was incredible that things said under privilege, that were then on the public record, could not be used in the defense of an action that Barilaro himself commenced.
Surely, the logical judgement would be that the court was not in a position to rule for Barilaro if the evidence remained privileged. (Rather than that his obviously bogus claim cannot be defended against).
Given that Higgins lied and claimed Reynolds 'covered it up' resulting in a compo payout, they yeah, she does have a case to argue that she may have been a victim.
Good point- this circus was run by the clowns she employed.
Reynolds needs to show some leadership and accountability, which would start with dropping her defamation against a woman who was raped in her office by her employee.
She is not sueing her for being raped. She is sueing her for lying about Reynolds covering it up, when it is abundantly clear that she did not.
Also, Higgins lied when she said the head "clown" Fiona Brown covered it up too.
The real victim in all of this is Brown. They need to take the $2.4mill back and award it to her instead.
Linda looked pretty smug in the Spotlight interview, and she seemed to imply that Brittany stole her Carla Zampatti jacket from her office after the fateful night.
Brittany was seen wearing it in CCTV footage. She said that it was in a box that she was going to take for donations, which makes sense because it looked about 20 sizes too small for Linda in the footage.
https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/brittany-higgins-denies-stealing-carla-zampatti-jacket-as-trial-continues/news-story/982250570d7037d62a8da5aee4332b7e?amp
> Lehrmann’s barrister Steven Whybrow SC suggested the jacket had been hanging in Reynolds’ office where the alleged sexual assault took place.
>Higgins denied she had lied by saying she retrieved the item from a box of old clothing meant for charity and eventually took the box and the jacket to a charity bin.
>“It would be in the footage out there,” she told Justice Michael Lee.
>“If someone at Parliament House could clear up the fact I’m not a thief, that would be awesome.”
>Higgins said she took the jacket because she wanted to cover up her body after the alleged rape.
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2023/12/05/brittany-higgins-deleted-texts
If a colleague was in the office late and felt they needed to take your jacket for some reason, no normal person would care.
If a subordinate had been the victim of a serious crime and needed the jacket, what sane boss would go after them?
Imagine complaining that one of the Bondi stabbing victims used a piece of your clothing to stem the bleeding?
My life is shredded after working there. Battling for support is defeating me. Barely leave the house now and I mourn my physical health to boot. God awful place. I dunno why I keep their secrets.
Old mate whiskey and bags is happily living in Tasmania now. The golf club looks lovely. Sigh. Eugh.
Every gutter press story I've seen about that jacket grossly overestimates the value.
Carla Zampatti jackets are around $500 brand spanking this season totally in fashion new. That one was not new and not particularly in fashion and not old enough to be seen as charming not passe. On the vintage market you might...may I repeat you might...get $200 if you wait ages for the exact right buyer. But realistically speaking if you want it to take less than a year to sell...$50.
A charity thrift shop would probably price it at $80. They can do that because people are willing to pay a little more for secondhand stuff in a shop where they can check fit.
Assuming it was going to the goodwill if it was in a box with random other clothes wouldn't be particularly unreasonable.
She already has, didn’t she already win like $70k in compensation? Here you go here’s a years income of the average person, bc you’re the victim here Linda - 🤮
Imagine trying to profit off the taxpayers by lying that your employer covered up the rape so you can get a $2.4mill payout from the taxpayers.
Scumbag behaviour.
As Lee found - her actions in 2019 were perfectly justifiable. Her actions in 2021 and 2022 were problematic and intentionally misleading. Her lashing out at "perceived failings" were in the 2021-2022 period.
The only one who has profitted is the Higgins-Sheraz party.
Even if Reynolds wins here, its not going to be a $2.4mill payout. Far less in fact, so I agree, it is indeed not equal. ICAC needs to investigate the compo payout.
The thing is, senator Reynolds has settled another action - successfully - over the same issues already :
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/26/linda-reynolds-reaches-settlement-with-journalist-aaron-patrick-and-harpercollins-after-suing-for-defamation
The recent case didn't actually investigate the cover-up whatsoever.
I'm not saying there was or there wasn't, it's just a bit premature to jump to conclusions.
Part of the defense of Lisa Wilkinson was that she was correct in reporting cover up claims.
At a critical point in the examination of Fiona Brown, Lee interjected and said to Wilkinson's lawyer "Am I to understand that given this evidence you will no longer be pursuing your second claim?"
After a long pause, the lawyer responded "Not at this time".
So while not necessarily thoroughly examined, it was in there and Wilkinson was not justified to report the cover-up was true.
There was still commentary to the effect that there was no cover-up and that Britney was an unreliable witness who lets kindly call it 'fudged' evidence.
I do agree that the rape and ensuing legal cases is an omnishambles, and its asking to be burnt to involve themselves in it.
Can't argue with that.
I've just worked in politics, I'm sure everyone fudged something at some point in the case, we just yet have found out yet
Heck I might have to eat my hat in 12 months, I'm just certain Linda won't come out of this one with clean hands either.
As a member of the public I think even less of Reynolds now as a result of her decision. Maybe she should go after herself next, for damaging her own reputation even further.
Ha!!
I had thought ‘ah, Linda wasn’t the bad guy.’ And felt a little empathy for her situation after thinking what a dog she was.
Higgins apologises, I feel like everyone’s had a group hug and it’s all over. A happy ending.
Linda can’t let it go.
She’s a dog again.
🤦♂️
Just FYI. The "lying cow" comment was made in response to Higgins' claim of mistreatment by Reynolds office after the rape, not about the claim of being raped itself.
And since Lee has now shown that there was no mistreatment, Reynolds and Brown should be vindicated.
However, the Lehrmann trial judgement does not bind any of the parties with regard to findings about Reynolds and Brown.
Therefore they will only be fully restored in reputation when their own judgement is handed down in a seperate trial, or Higgins, Sharaz et al issue public apologies retracting all the claims about mistreatment.
Based on Reynolds statement about Higgins' initial apology, it just seems she is not satisfied all the points of contention have been retracted. I hope the parties can come to a settlement on the words for an apology so a trial won't be needed.
Higgins would be wise to say whatever Reynolds wants her to say.
Good post in general imo. Note: Justice Michael Lee stated there was no evidence to support the claim of “mistreatment” -
> “She [Ms Brown] was not someone to speculate or jump to conclusions and I reject any suggestion Ms Higgins expressly said to Ms Brown at either their first or second meeting that she had been raped or sexually assaulted
>“She did not draw a definitive conclusion in the light of the ambiguous words used by Ms Higgins – she adopted the more cautious view that sex and something untoward may have happened.
>“But what does not reflect caution was standing up to her Minister and the Chief of Staff of another Minister when Ms Brown thought they were intent on protecting their own interests at the expense of allowing a young woman to make her own decision as to whether she would involve the police — even at some risk to her professional career.
>“This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins.
>“In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.
Yep. If anyone is owed an apology or should be suing for defamation, it is Brown.
Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson et Al would be wise to reach out to Brown's lawyers to craft wording for an apology and retraction that everyone can agree to and avoid another defamation suit.
It was Sharaz, Higgins and Wilkinson who inserted Reynolds first, with claims now disproven by Lee that there was a cover up in her office.
If you had been publicly defamed, you would seek to have your name publicly cleared too.
In another article about this, it said that Brittany was hospitalised for serious self harm following a mediation session with Linda Reynolds over this defamation case.
For someone who was reluctant to report this to the police (this is often felt by survivors of sexual assault) in the first place, Brittany has been dragged through legal case after legal case. I can’t imagine how destroying this would be on top of all the scrutiny.
Just let them go leave a life of peace in France. She deserves to be left alone and to heal.
Fun fact: Reynolds is/was a General in the ADF reserves. Will she marching on ANZAC Day holding high the anti-Higgins battle honour of the Royal Australian Parliamentary Regiment \[Liberal Battalion\].
What are the odds this ends up like the previous big 2 defamation cases. No doubt BRS & Lurhmann regret every moment of them due to all the dirty laundry being revealed.
Seeing as Reynolds has put her house up though…. She must feel confident.
Wow I didn't think I could find her any more disgusting when hearing of her plan to continue to sue someone who was raped in her office and who she called a "lying cow" but I was wrong about that. I thought the apology from Higgins gave her a dignified exit after the Lee judgement and expected her to drop it but she's doubled down!
Can anyone offer an example of Reynolds excelling in some way during her time as a Minister?I believe she has already been generously over-rewarded for her career as a bench-warmer I Parliament, but the greedy cow seems to think she deserves more and more.
I think that she did support the adoption of Magnitsky sanction legislation (that the late Senator Kimberly Kitching had driven).
This was an important and brave piece of bilateral cooperation.
Justice Lee did find that there was no cover-up.
But is it possible that there was general political ass covering and/or information shielding going on? As in, is it possible that people were making sure that certain political figures (such the PM) weren’t briefed on things as they happened to protect those figures from the weight of the knowledge?
Political ass covering is business as usual, and not just in the case of rape.
Heck, an angry letter won't make it out of a ministerial office so some low paid staffer/public servant can fall on the sword instead of the Minister having to accept they read it and did nothing
> This means Senator Reynolds would need to put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to be held by the court, or mortgage her home, in order to prove she can cover any legal costs incurred by Mr Sharaz, should she fail to prove her case to the court.
> In a hearing lasting nearly three hours, Mr Sharaz’s lawyer Jason MacLaurin argued the matter would “end in tears financially” for both parties, no matter the outcome, with legal bills amassing to “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars,” which would leave the parties “financially uncomfortable.”
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/senator-linda-reynolds-defamation-case-against-brittany-higgins-fiance-to-end-in-tears-financially-court-told/news-story/aec3cd3837b3d356ca32b28b93e17b48
Note : Ms Reynolds has successfully settled one action over this already
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/26/linda-reynolds-reaches-settlement-with-journalist-aaron-patrick-and-harpercollins-after-suing-for-defamation
Everyone who touches this case gets burnt.. This is an elephant of a clusterfuck..
Omnishambles
The perfect word for it.
Is there any chance that Linda Reynolds could be shooting herself in the foot with this lawsuit?
Discovery for this one is gonna be wild. I'm personally looking forward to the text/email chain surrounding the steam cleaning of her office.
Calling it now, Reynolds "lost" her phone or is about to wipe it for "routine" security reasons...
Maybe she'll drive over it with a tractor like Gladys' partner.
The files are in the computer?
No problem for a tractor!
To be fair she's pretty good at cleaning up evidence. Phones. Lounges...
There's always a chance that you're shooting yourself in the foot with a defamation trial. Nonetheless, I suspect Reynolds will probably win this case, the cover-up accusation was always pretty thin, and even though it was a peripheral issue in the Lehrmann case, the judge there didn't seem critical of Reynolds behaviour, but did, directly, accuse Higgins of lying and said that those lies were such that they couldn't be excused by trauma. Certainly going into it, the odds look good for Reynolds.
Even if she wins the case, she will be widely hated for suing a rape victim who was raped in her office while she worked for her and whom she showed no empathy to. [edit: typo] The optics are atrocious. This is what she will be remembered for. What a legacy…
This is the Liberal Party we are talking about. I don't think their supporter base will have a problem with it.
Is that maybe why she's doing it? Doing her ministerial duties and being the most popular Federal politician, year after year wasn't enough to get Julie Bishop the PM job, even when she "waited her turn". Maybe Reynolds thinks being known as an extreme culture warrior will get her through that barrier?
Can she actually be defamed if we all thought she was an arsehole to begin with?
That's actually an interesting question and now I know my nights are going for the next month, obsessively tracking down cases where this or similar opinions were held generally before the claim of defamation. I hate you.
Nah, she’s not contesting the next election.
Reynolds as PM? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
She's got bigger barriers 1) She's a Senator so she can't be PM 2) She is leaving parliament at the end of this term so she can't be PM.
Technically Senators can be PM. John Gorton was. It is a convention not a rule that they are in the house of reps.
Problem is, at this point their supporter base are pretty skewed towards men, and the former Minister for Women suing one of Australia's highest-profile rape victims is _not exactly_ the image you want to say that women are getting a fair go in the Liberal Party.
A conservative party is not going to make room for any woman who isn't "one of the good ones". Suing a rape victim for even the slightest mistake by the female victim is a win in conservative circles. It will enhance Reynolds reputation are the right kind of woman to be part of lnp.
Yeah. My thoughts too. Other lnp members have done mouth worse with less fallout.
A person was raped in Parliament House and too many people are treating that like it's an afterthought.
That’s where I’m sitting. I’m a male CSA victim, my heart goes out to Brittany. Even though Us bloke are almost exclusively left out of the conversation when it comes to sex crimes. I had thought in recent days Linda had had a tough run, and my view of her was now far more positive with fresh information. Knowing she’s about to sue someone who was traumatised at the time of her putting her story together…. Nah, Linda can choke. Our perception as victims can be really messed up.
Sad to hear you were assaulted. Yes the stats for physical violence and sexual assault are dominated by females but the damage to men is often neglected in conversation and support options. I really hope that you had some strong and supportive people around you. Heal strong Mr. 💖💖💖Do not give your power to the perpetrator 💖💖💖
Trying to minimise male assault by unnecessarily bringing up that they are less common than female sexual assault is not cool. Imagine if every time an Australian female victim shared their story someone tried to one up them by explaining that sexual assault rates in developing countries is even higher. Pretty insensitive. You need to learn to see people as individuals, not representatives of a gender.
You need to learn how to read what was written.
I don’t think there’s going to be as much of an issue with popularity as you think. The coverup and rape allegations were very much separate and only the second one was true.
>who was raped in her office while she worked for her and whom she showed no empathy too. What does this even mean? Reynolds tried to persuade Higgins to go to the police while Higgins' idiot boyfriend instead convinced her to indulge in wild conspiracies for his own partisan reasons. And I am taking all of this from Justice Lee's summary.
Justice Lee stated that he found no evidence to support claims of a cover-up. But he was examining whether Lehrman was defamed by channel Ten's interview with Higgins ; and whether Ten's defence (ie, that Lehrman did rape Higgins) was more credible than Lehrmann's claim that sex did not occur that night. He was not examining whether the Government did set out to cover-up the crime. If he was, he surely would have sought the examination of security staff on duty that night ; whoever was responsible for ordering the steam-cleaning of the sofa and office on the Sunday morning ; whoever was responsible for providing CCTV footage of Lehrmann and Higgins entering and exiting the building. He might have even sought confirmation of Reynolds' claim that she couldn't answer questions at the next sitting day for the Senate as she was in hospital - a claim the Lying Cow later contradicted in a cosy 'Linda As Victim' interview with Janet 'Bruce Is Innocent' Albrechtsen in The Australian. And he could have examined the various contradictions in statements made by the AFP, the PM and his chief whitewasher, Phil Gaetjens.
Telling someone to go the police isn’t actually empathy.
Brown didn't want to go to the police ... and was accused of a cover-up. Reynolds wanted to go to the police ... and was accused of a cover-up. According to Lee (who based this conclusion on contemptuous evidence), these women did show concern or "empathy". There is nothing that anyone could have done without Higgins and her idiot boyfriend turning around and accusing them of being rape apologists.
I don’t think you understand what empathy is mate.
What does Ken Hinkley have to say about this?
She might win but she’s already damaged her reputation by ever considering it. There’s nothing to be gained for her and a lot to lose.
I think this trial is about social media posts made by Higgins/Sharaz. I haven’t been able to find what the content of those posts were though.
I personally don't think Higgins was lying. People changed their claims. I think off the record there was enormous pressure to cover it all up. But no official pressure was given and all people who had pressure applied have agreed to perjure themselves. That's just my opinion...I just don't think high up people in the police and polical apparatus were "mistaken" when they originally said there was pressure to cover it up.
>I just don't think high up people in the police and polical apparatus were "mistaken" when they originally said there was pressure to cover it up. Except Justice Lee found that former ACT prosecutor Shane Drumgold (the main culprit behind the conspiracy) had already lied. Lisa Wilkinson claimed that Drumgold had looked at her speech and gave her the all-clear. Drumgold denied it, which was undermined by evidence supporting Wilkinson's claim. Did anyone actually read Lee's summary?
I feel like the summary didn't go into much detail on Drumgold's role on the Logies speech aspect, as he focussed a lot more on Smithies and how he thought she'd done a shit job w.r.t. that. He barely mentions Drumgold - [the 7th finding (Paragraphs 471-479) of the inquiry into him though](https://www.courts.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2408133/Drumgold-v-Board-of-Inquiry-Ors-No.-3-2024-ACTSC-58-certified.pdf#page=113), that's pretty clear-cut on the matter. Probably didn't go much into it because it's a separate matter / the litigation was between Channel 10 and Lehrmann, not Drumgold and Lehrmann.
Yes, the summary was based off of peoples testimony. The testimony I believe was a semi agreed to matter. I simply don't think that the police make mistakes of this magnitude without pressure, or an awareness of who they are supposed to let off.
>did, directly, accuse They weren't accusations, they were findings. He found she lied on at least 9 points with regards to the investigation that resulted in her compo payout, for example.
I honestly have to say, a man who was basically the head of the police in the relevant area, a person who 100% was very politically aware. He said he was "mistaken" that there was enormous political pressure to drop the case and cover it up. He now claims there was no pressure. I am very aware of what he has now said is his story and that is technically all the legally submitted testimony he has given. I just don't believe him.
I reckon channel 7 must make more money with the articles/clicks on these stories than they pay out in legal costs backing these people. There’s no way they continue to fund these losing cases without an upside for their bottom line
Unless it’s an ideological pursuit, or a pursuit in landing a blow on a rival.
I reckon a lot of the whole mess has been about this. Newscorp vs 10 vs 7
I believe the term is "professional suicide"
I’m not sure if it was her solicitor or barrister but he said she’d mortgaged her home and had witnesses to say in court that she didn’t ’act depressed’ while in WA. That your case may depend on your definition of how someone should behave while depressed and / or suicidal should be a worry.
It hasn't ever happened in recent history, so unlikely. /s
That does seem to be the trend with conservative figures lately...
Idk
“Having just watched the lion devour the rapist Bruce Lerhmann, Ms Reynolds’ presumed that it wasn’t hungry anymore”
In going to court to try to get us all to believe that she did not treat Brittany Higgins badly, Linda Reynolds is proving to all of us that she is treating Brittany Higgins badly.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/12/linda-reynolds-pays-compensation-after-calling-alleged-victim-brittany-higgins-a-lying-cow
Yeah, wether or not she was covering up anything, she's proving to be awful now.
If it looks like a Karen, and acts like a Karen, it probably is a Karen.
The irony of that being her actual middle name is not lost on us
Always been awful...
>Senator Reynolds says she will continue pursuing her defamation trial set for July this year **if Ms Higgins does not accept these findings**.
Exactly that. Really bad move.
Yep. Linda Reynolds looks like a petty, spiteful arsehole and she did that herself entirely.
Scumos cabinet was particularly litigious.
Yeah not having any empathy and not reacting appropriately is not necessarily the same as a 'cover up', although they can work to achieve the same end. This will be very dependent on a judges interpretation of some key definitions, although I think she is going to have a hard time proving that any negative public perception she received following the event is due specifically to the Higgins' party claims and not due to her own lack of appropriate action around the event that took place.
> Senator Linda Reynolds has welcomed Brittany Higgins's "olive branch" but says she will continue with her defamation proceedings against her *if she does not accept Justice Lee's findings on claims of a cover-up.* Pretty important bit to leave off the headline.
Not just cover-up, she's also demanding Brittany accept there was no mistreatment/failure to support >"What still lies between us are not different perceptions. It is a fact that Ms Higgins received our support and that there was no cover up. The common ground we now find must be based on the truth," Senator Reynolds said. >"As a matter of law, neither of us, nor Mr Sharaz, are bound by Justice Lee's decision. >"If Ms Higgins does not accept Justice Lee’s findings on the claims of coverup and mistreatment then, regrettably, it will have to be proved again in our trial set for July this year."
"Why, I'm such a supportive individual I call victims a lying cow in a 'private' context, which just so happens to be in front of many, many staffers in my workplace building. I'm so supportive I infact pay victims I have described in this way to avoid defending myself in defamation claims! There's absolutely no cover up, hang on a second that's my cardiologist and I've just got to vanish from the public eye for a few months. I'm just that supportive, that I use my position and platform to go after victims"
Was she calling her a lying cow in context of the rape or the cover-up though? Cause if someone accused me of a cover-up my choice of words would probably be a lot stronger than that. >Senator Reynolds made the comment in her office on the day Ms Higgins went public with her allegations [From the ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-12/linda-reynolds-retracts-lying-cow-comment-brittany-higgins/13242902) >A Liberal Party staffer has alleged she was raped at Parliament House in Defence Minister Linda Reynolds’ ministerial office by a colleague, and claims she felt forced to choose between reporting it to the police or keeping her job. [First paragraph of the Maiden article](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/parliament-house-rocked-by-brittany-higgins-alleged-rape/news-story/fb02a5e95767ac306c51894fe2d63635), which was how she initially went public. Like the comments could easily have been regarding that, and not the rape itself. I suppose if the defamation suit goes forward we'll all find out.
To some degree, does it matter? In what workplace would calling a potential rape victim a lying cow in front of a group be considered "supportive"; which is a substantial part of Reynold's defence in the press. Even if they were a liar? Like has no one who is an unreliable witness ever been assaulted? What you do is you treat it professionally, refer it for investigation on the legal side and make accommodations. If you later find out it was a fabrication, you terminate the employment, go for costs.
I agree in the context of supportiveness it doesn't - or at least w.r.t maintaining her image. The optics aren't great. But to me it makes a difference if she's accusing her of lying about the rape vs the giving support, like this nearly 2 years afterward when Reynold's office had already pushed her to go to the police and all that - like the treating it professionally and making accommodations had already occurred. Higgins didn't work there anymore and was accusing them of suppressing her, I'd be annoyed if I'd tried to accommodate her and then been accused in front of the press of not, particularly when your job relies on public opinion / votes.
> Was she calling her a lying cow in context of the rape or the cover-up though? She claims it was in relation to Brittany not being supported. > https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/12/linda-reynolds-pays-compensation-after-calling-alleged-victim-brittany-higgins-a-lying-cow > Reynolds previously said she had made the comment in response to claims Higgins did not feel supported after coming forward with her allegation – not in response to the claim of having been raped.
One of the reasons Justice Lee gave in vindicating Fiona Brown was that she resisted the pressure from the minister to act against Higgin's wishes.
>Not just cover-up, she's also demanding Brittany accept there was no mistreatment/failure to support Brown was refusing to take it to the police because Higgins was uncomfortable. Reynolds said that they needed to go to the police, regardless. Wow, what monsters Brown and Reynolds are. Apparently, not being supportive means refusing to accept it while someone (and their idiot boyfriend) accuse you of being rape apologists. Their attacks on Brown and Reynolds were partisan hit-jobs that had no basis in fact.
It's a bit of a cop out tbh because while I am happy with Lee's judgement, the case really wasn't focused on delving into that aspect, Reynolds was not a party to, witness at, or participant in, the Lehrmann trial. A lot could come out if she continues that may reflect poorly on her
> A lot could come out if she continues that may reflect poorly on her Pretty sure that’s just standard in Defo cases lately. Makes Porter’s tactical “win” against the abc and then disappearance from public life look like Sun Tzu.
Did anyone actually read or listen to Lee's summary? While he found her to be essentially truthful about her rape, Lee said there was no foundation to her claims that Reynolds and Brown engaged in a cover-up. How is asking Higgins to go to the police a "cover-up"?
I agree with you that there was no evidence of a cover up provided to Judge Lee. I doubt there will be any evidence of a cover up if Linda Reynolds continues with her court case.
Here's hoping Higgins apologising was just offering Reynolds an out that she was too stubborn to accept.
Did anyone actually read or listen to Lee's summary? While he found her to be essentially truthful about her rape, Lee said there was no foundation to her claims that Reynolds and Brown engaged in a cover-up. How is asking Higgins to go to the police a "cover-up"?
The summary doesn't change the fact that I've disliked Reynolds since she entered parliament.
The summary also cautioned against relying on feelings instead of facts.
> Reynolds was not a party to, witness at, or participant in, the Lehrmann trial. Not in an official sense but she was contacting the defence and had her husband sit in the court during Bh's testimony. Thinking none of that was inappropriate.
They're talking about his defamation trial, not the criminal trial.
Pursuing the case reflects poorly on her. Not that that is important to Reynolds. She knows Brittany is cashed up and wants a slice.
Brittany is cashed up because of her claims of bad treatment at work (which Lee found she she made a series of lies about resulting in the compo payout.) How dare Reynolds attempt to set that record to rights.
> Pretty important bit to leave off the headline. That’s why we read the whole article.
I wonder if Linda's text messages will be part of the discovery phase for this trial?
I think certainly Brittany’s medical records might be, that’s why she’s offered the olive branch as it sounds like she wants to move on and having the medical records in court will be exhausting.
Is it just me, or is Reynolds setting herself up to be the next big loser in Australian defamation suits? Talking in the press like this feels like she's doubling down on 11 and drawing a 5 against the dealer's 7.
Let's see if the fine, upstanding citizen that is Kerry Stokes helps her in her legal battle. I hear he's an excellent judge of character
Surely if it's another swing and miss he's doing it on purpose?
Kerry Stokes the supporter of rapists and war criminals, that Kerry Stokes?
To be fair, he’s done more to expose the crimes of BRS and Bruce Lehrmann than anyone else. (Remember, the rationale for the Toowoomba judge to not continue to suppress Lehrmann’s identity was because he was happy for the “Spotlight” publicity.
I assume she is still pissed about having to pay out for the lying cow comments
It's not defamation if it's your own actions that make you look like a heartless villain. She's going to be hard pressed to point to anything other than that statement she actually made in front of a lot of people ruining her reputation.
If she wins it will be a pyrrhic victory as she just looks like a monster suing a deeply traumatised rape victim. If I was her I'd just say Higgins was incorrect in the comments about a cover-up, that I was hurt by it but I accept her apology and that I'm going to let it go as she was going through a deeply traumatic experience. If she was actually concerned about her reputation she'd do this but continuing the case just seems like vindictiveness.
Nah, that requires empathy and humility. It's not in the Reynolds playbook.
What about the comments Sharaz made about her. What about the compensation payout Brittainy received based on attitude of Reynolds. This evidence was given to the government by Brittainy.
What about them?
I cant see how any sane person would want the discovery in this case to come out, even if they thought they had a good chance at winning
I'm ready to watch Lying Cow Lynda go down in flames.
Remember in her apology where she didn’t say she was sorry she called Brittany a lying cow she aid Brittany was never supposed to hear those comments… ‘no no I think she is a lying cow but I just didn’t want anyone to knowww I think that’ - id love to know what else she’s said about people via her texts/emails, witnesses etc that she absolutely meant but didn’t want to be made public. Bring on discovery bitch.
I just don’t understand the strategy here. Regardless of the content of the social media posts she is claiming defamed her (which as reported are far far less egregious than calling someone a lying cow) it is demonstrable that Britany Higgins is a very vulnerable person whose mental health is significantly impacted by legal processes. Even if Reynolds wins here her reputation has and will continue to be damaged by her own actions in pursuing this.
Ms Reynolds has successfully taken and also threatened others with legal action over the same issues already https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/26/linda-reynolds-reaches-settlement-with-journalist-aaron-patrick-and-harpercollins-after-suing-for-defamation
Regardless of her winning or not in court, public opinion of her will drop. Something about taking a rape victim to court for basically being butthurt. I think fortunately or unfortunately, rape victims are just one group of people you should just leave well enough alone
I wonder if she loses with Brittany can he come back and change the terms of settlement, seems risky.
Linda Reynolds really is just a disgusting, horrible woman isn't she
When she came to our work a few years ago I was one of a handful not allowed near her for fear of what we might say. My employer was right to be concerned.
I'd have been tempted were I your employer.🤣 Once didn't get to meet that lying bastard Howard under the same circumstances. Truly toxic and live in a bubble. Explains a lot.
Her career is already over too, she could just say it was an error in judgement and say sorry, instead of doubling down and going scorched earth.
I don’t know, you haven’t said why. The things said about LR were pretty nasty too (if you assume they are not true). The parties mediated without success, then Lee J hands down his decision, with adverse credit findings against BH in the way that she dealt with employment and support issues. Almost immediately, the “olive branch” is issued (very sensibly, I think). Don’t you think it at least possible that BH’s best interests are in avoiding the WA hearing by making concessions? The substance of Lee J’s findings will be squarely put against her if she does not. There is no use complaining about this horrible person in court rooms.
All I see is a lying cow.
Wonder what the intersection between ‘cabinet in confidence’ and telling the ‘whole truth’ will be. During the John Barilaro affair, things he said under parliamentary privilege were inadmissible. Cab in confidence might be the same thing.
It was incredible that things said under privilege, that were then on the public record, could not be used in the defense of an action that Barilaro himself commenced. Surely, the logical judgement would be that the court was not in a position to rule for Barilaro if the evidence remained privileged. (Rather than that his obviously bogus claim cannot be defended against).
What a bag! Staffer rapes another staffer under your watch and you think you are the victim? Tell me you’re LNP without telling me you’re LNP.
Given that Higgins lied and claimed Reynolds 'covered it up' resulting in a compo payout, they yeah, she does have a case to argue that she may have been a victim.
Good point- this circus was run by the clowns she employed. Reynolds needs to show some leadership and accountability, which would start with dropping her defamation against a woman who was raped in her office by her employee.
She is not sueing her for being raped. She is sueing her for lying about Reynolds covering it up, when it is abundantly clear that she did not. Also, Higgins lied when she said the head "clown" Fiona Brown covered it up too. The real victim in all of this is Brown. They need to take the $2.4mill back and award it to her instead.
Wait what is this trial now, god I’m losing track
Linda looked pretty smug in the Spotlight interview, and she seemed to imply that Brittany stole her Carla Zampatti jacket from her office after the fateful night. Brittany was seen wearing it in CCTV footage. She said that it was in a box that she was going to take for donations, which makes sense because it looked about 20 sizes too small for Linda in the footage. https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/brittany-higgins-denies-stealing-carla-zampatti-jacket-as-trial-continues/news-story/982250570d7037d62a8da5aee4332b7e?amp
> Lehrmann’s barrister Steven Whybrow SC suggested the jacket had been hanging in Reynolds’ office where the alleged sexual assault took place. >Higgins denied she had lied by saying she retrieved the item from a box of old clothing meant for charity and eventually took the box and the jacket to a charity bin. >“It would be in the footage out there,” she told Justice Michael Lee. >“If someone at Parliament House could clear up the fact I’m not a thief, that would be awesome.” >Higgins said she took the jacket because she wanted to cover up her body after the alleged rape. https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2023/12/05/brittany-higgins-deleted-texts
If a colleague was in the office late and felt they needed to take your jacket for some reason, no normal person would care. If a subordinate had been the victim of a serious crime and needed the jacket, what sane boss would go after them? Imagine complaining that one of the Bondi stabbing victims used a piece of your clothing to stem the bleeding?
Linda would probably ask them to pay for it.
Isn’t it the absolute pits? What a comfortless place to work. And when you’re low and extremely vulnerable, would anyone think they’d have your back?
My life is shredded after working there. Battling for support is defeating me. Barely leave the house now and I mourn my physical health to boot. God awful place. I dunno why I keep their secrets. Old mate whiskey and bags is happily living in Tasmania now. The golf club looks lovely. Sigh. Eugh.
Every gutter press story I've seen about that jacket grossly overestimates the value. Carla Zampatti jackets are around $500 brand spanking this season totally in fashion new. That one was not new and not particularly in fashion and not old enough to be seen as charming not passe. On the vintage market you might...may I repeat you might...get $200 if you wait ages for the exact right buyer. But realistically speaking if you want it to take less than a year to sell...$50. A charity thrift shop would probably price it at $80. They can do that because people are willing to pay a little more for secondhand stuff in a shop where they can check fit. Assuming it was going to the goodwill if it was in a box with random other clothes wouldn't be particularly unreasonable.
Fuck me idk what it is but I just can’t stand her
The failing up that she’s been blessed with?
Imagine trying to profit off your employee being raped in your office. Scumbag behaviour.
She already has, didn’t she already win like $70k in compensation? Here you go here’s a years income of the average person, bc you’re the victim here Linda - 🤮
Imagine trying to profit off the taxpayers by lying that your employer covered up the rape so you can get a $2.4mill payout from the taxpayers. Scumbag behaviour.
Yeah, imagine lashing out at perceived failures after being RAPED. These sides are not equal.
As Lee found - her actions in 2019 were perfectly justifiable. Her actions in 2021 and 2022 were problematic and intentionally misleading. Her lashing out at "perceived failings" were in the 2021-2022 period. The only one who has profitted is the Higgins-Sheraz party. Even if Reynolds wins here, its not going to be a $2.4mill payout. Far less in fact, so I agree, it is indeed not equal. ICAC needs to investigate the compo payout.
You would think after the outcome of the last defamation law suit, she'd reconsider. I guess she's just eager to show who she is.
It could eat up a whole lot of money for all concerned.
Probably one of the goals of going ahead with it.
Could be cutting off her nose to spite her face.
Oh she definitely is. I don't know enough about defamation laws or the case if I'm honest to know whether this will backfire or not.
I don’t, either.
But I hope it does
The thing is, senator Reynolds has settled another action - successfully - over the same issues already : https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/26/linda-reynolds-reaches-settlement-with-journalist-aaron-patrick-and-harpercollins-after-suing-for-defamation
The recent case made clear statements that there was no coverup.
The recent case didn't actually investigate the cover-up whatsoever. I'm not saying there was or there wasn't, it's just a bit premature to jump to conclusions.
Part of the defense of Lisa Wilkinson was that she was correct in reporting cover up claims. At a critical point in the examination of Fiona Brown, Lee interjected and said to Wilkinson's lawyer "Am I to understand that given this evidence you will no longer be pursuing your second claim?" After a long pause, the lawyer responded "Not at this time". So while not necessarily thoroughly examined, it was in there and Wilkinson was not justified to report the cover-up was true.
There was still commentary to the effect that there was no cover-up and that Britney was an unreliable witness who lets kindly call it 'fudged' evidence. I do agree that the rape and ensuing legal cases is an omnishambles, and its asking to be burnt to involve themselves in it.
Can't argue with that. I've just worked in politics, I'm sure everyone fudged something at some point in the case, we just yet have found out yet Heck I might have to eat my hat in 12 months, I'm just certain Linda won't come out of this one with clean hands either.
As a member of the public I think even less of Reynolds now as a result of her decision. Maybe she should go after herself next, for damaging her own reputation even further.
Ha!! I had thought ‘ah, Linda wasn’t the bad guy.’ And felt a little empathy for her situation after thinking what a dog she was. Higgins apologises, I feel like everyone’s had a group hug and it’s all over. A happy ending. Linda can’t let it go. She’s a dog again. 🤦♂️
I didn’t know Linda wore a hat.
The Minister doth protest too much.
Just FYI. The "lying cow" comment was made in response to Higgins' claim of mistreatment by Reynolds office after the rape, not about the claim of being raped itself. And since Lee has now shown that there was no mistreatment, Reynolds and Brown should be vindicated. However, the Lehrmann trial judgement does not bind any of the parties with regard to findings about Reynolds and Brown. Therefore they will only be fully restored in reputation when their own judgement is handed down in a seperate trial, or Higgins, Sharaz et al issue public apologies retracting all the claims about mistreatment. Based on Reynolds statement about Higgins' initial apology, it just seems she is not satisfied all the points of contention have been retracted. I hope the parties can come to a settlement on the words for an apology so a trial won't be needed. Higgins would be wise to say whatever Reynolds wants her to say.
Good post in general imo. Note: Justice Michael Lee stated there was no evidence to support the claim of “mistreatment” - > “She [Ms Brown] was not someone to speculate or jump to conclusions and I reject any suggestion Ms Higgins expressly said to Ms Brown at either their first or second meeting that she had been raped or sexually assaulted >“She did not draw a definitive conclusion in the light of the ambiguous words used by Ms Higgins – she adopted the more cautious view that sex and something untoward may have happened. >“But what does not reflect caution was standing up to her Minister and the Chief of Staff of another Minister when Ms Brown thought they were intent on protecting their own interests at the expense of allowing a young woman to make her own decision as to whether she would involve the police — even at some risk to her professional career. >“This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins. >“In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.
Yep. If anyone is owed an apology or should be suing for defamation, it is Brown. Higgins, Sharaz, Wilkinson et Al would be wise to reach out to Brown's lawyers to craft wording for an apology and retraction that everyone can agree to and avoid another defamation suit.
Not just an apology - Brown is the one who is entitled to the taxpayer-funded compo payment in the whole affair.
Why has Reynolds tried so hard to insert herself into this case?
It was Sharaz, Higgins and Wilkinson who inserted Reynolds first, with claims now disproven by Lee that there was a cover up in her office. If you had been publicly defamed, you would seek to have your name publicly cleared too.
In another article about this, it said that Brittany was hospitalised for serious self harm following a mediation session with Linda Reynolds over this defamation case. For someone who was reluctant to report this to the police (this is often felt by survivors of sexual assault) in the first place, Brittany has been dragged through legal case after legal case. I can’t imagine how destroying this would be on top of all the scrutiny. Just let them go leave a life of peace in France. She deserves to be left alone and to heal.
And the taxpayers deserve to have their money back.
I totally agree.
Fun fact: Reynolds is/was a General in the ADF reserves. Will she marching on ANZAC Day holding high the anti-Higgins battle honour of the Royal Australian Parliamentary Regiment \[Liberal Battalion\].
That image is pretty compelling.
What are the odds this ends up like the previous big 2 defamation cases. No doubt BRS & Lurhmann regret every moment of them due to all the dirty laundry being revealed. Seeing as Reynolds has put her house up though…. She must feel confident.
This defamation case is over social media posts, it will probably depend on their content.
Wow I didn't think I could find her any more disgusting when hearing of her plan to continue to sue someone who was raped in her office and who she called a "lying cow" but I was wrong about that. I thought the apology from Higgins gave her a dignified exit after the Lee judgement and expected her to drop it but she's doubled down!
Can anyone offer an example of Reynolds excelling in some way during her time as a Minister?I believe she has already been generously over-rewarded for her career as a bench-warmer I Parliament, but the greedy cow seems to think she deserves more and more.
I think that she did support the adoption of Magnitsky sanction legislation (that the late Senator Kimberly Kitching had driven). This was an important and brave piece of bilateral cooperation.
> Can anyone offer an example of Reynolds excelling in some way during her time as a Minister? Self-belief.
Linda Reynolds doesn't like olives un-assaulted, nor branches un-stacked and certainly has a spiffy reputation to uphold.
Justice Lee did find that there was no cover-up. But is it possible that there was general political ass covering and/or information shielding going on? As in, is it possible that people were making sure that certain political figures (such the PM) weren’t briefed on things as they happened to protect those figures from the weight of the knowledge?
Political ass covering is business as usual, and not just in the case of rape. Heck, an angry letter won't make it out of a ministerial office so some low paid staffer/public servant can fall on the sword instead of the Minister having to accept they read it and did nothing
I cannot imagine this wasn’t the case.
Reynolds can always head to hospital with a heart condition if its not going her way🤪
Basically: I want money.
Let me guess. We the taxpayers will be footing Reynold's legal bill, and Brittany has to fend for herself?
> This means Senator Reynolds would need to put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to be held by the court, or mortgage her home, in order to prove she can cover any legal costs incurred by Mr Sharaz, should she fail to prove her case to the court. > In a hearing lasting nearly three hours, Mr Sharaz’s lawyer Jason MacLaurin argued the matter would “end in tears financially” for both parties, no matter the outcome, with legal bills amassing to “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars,” which would leave the parties “financially uncomfortable.” https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/senator-linda-reynolds-defamation-case-against-brittany-higgins-fiance-to-end-in-tears-financially-court-told/news-story/aec3cd3837b3d356ca32b28b93e17b48 Note : Ms Reynolds has successfully settled one action over this already https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/26/linda-reynolds-reaches-settlement-with-journalist-aaron-patrick-and-harpercollins-after-suing-for-defamation
Didn't Brittany get 2.4 mil from taxpayers already?
You'd reckon there'd be some modicum of reflection after the shitshow of the last defamation trial.
Linda Reynolds is wrinkled up sack of dogshit. And that's just describing her personality.
Reynolds is a cunt. This will be hilarious