Late last year, Brittany Higgins told a court that “I have a legal minder nowadays, so I can’t do anything dumb.” You have to feel sorry for whatever harried partner of Sisyphus & Sisyphus she’s got on a retainer: they’ve sure had their work cut out for them.
Her latest genius legal move – on the very first day of her trial for defamation over bogus social media claims she was silenced by her former boss, Linda Reynolds – was to make yet another social media post. For Reynolds’ lawyers, it’s pure gold.
Higgins wasn’t there for Reynolds’ first day in the witness box but that didn’t stop her posting on Instagram the title of a new book, subtitled: “How the law silences women”, under the heading “Pertinent reading”.
For someone being sued over a series of allegedly defamatory social media posts, it was audacious, to say the least.
Well, that’s one word for it. It certainly had the lawyers scrambling for cover.
Higgins’ barrister, Rachael Young SC, said it had nothing to do with the case at hand.
Sure. And 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam.
Still, Young is certainly nothing if not determined to peddle obvious absurdities.
In defence documents previously filed with the court, Higgins’ lawyers had simply issued a blanket denial of Reynolds’ highly detailed claims that the pair drip-fed false information to some of Anthony Albanese’s closest confidantes, including Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong.
But in her opening submissions on Monday, Young argued that what looked to others like a carefully orchestrated political hit job was simply Higgins exercising her right to provide information to MPs – just like any other constituent.
By… drip-feeding them false information (allegedly).
[Reynolds’] lawyer Martin Bennett said Ms Higgins and her partner David Sharaz had cast Senator Reynolds in the role of villain “for their fictional story of political cover-up of the rape”.
He said Ms Higgins had made a series of “palpably false” allegations about Senator Reynolds, including that she had failed to support her in the aftermath of the rape, had tried to silence victims of sexual assault and had engaged in a campaign of harassment of Ms Higgins.
Mr Bennett said “Ms Higgins’s truth” was completely different to “the truth”.
Any reading of Reynolds’ case would indicate a secret cover-up to deceive was exactly what was being suggested.
Details of “The Plan” are set out in over 20 pages in the senator’s statement of claim, starting shortly after Higgins met Sharaz in May 2020 – 14 months after the alleged rape – when Higgins wrote a note about an “anatomy of a political sex scandal”.
Notably, Higgins’ co-accused, husband David Sharaz, will not be taking the stand. Nor is there any indication when Saint Brittany herself will deign to descend from the lofty heights of her taxpayer-funded French chateau.
Another key witness is so far not due to appear, thanks to dealing with the ongoing trauma from the “The Plan”.
Any testimony by Reynolds’ former chief of staff, Fiona Brown, is expected to be delayed due to “ongoing medical treatment”.
Brown has suffered trauma in the aftermath of Higgins’ allegations that she too had been uncaring of her young staffer and part of a political cover-up. Her plain-spoken evidence in the Lehrmann defamation case was key to Lee’s finding that there was no cover-up by Reynolds – and that Brown had shown great integrity and compassion in the way she dealt with Higgins.
Integrity and compassion that was not returned. ‘Believe women’ is an oddly contingent belief.
