During a contentious defamation trial, Senator Linda Reynolds’ lawyer claims Brittany Higgins “probably” stole a designer jacket, further complicating the legal battle between the two

In a dramatic development at the WA Supreme Court, Senator Linda Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, has accused Brittany Higgins of stealing a designer Carla Zampatti jacket from her former boss. This accusation comes as part of a high-profile defamation trial between Reynolds and Higgins.

The case centers on a series of social media posts made by Higgins and her husband, David Sharaz, which criticize Reynolds’ handling of allegations that Higgins was raped by Bruce Lehrmann in 2019. The posts also suggest that Reynolds sought to silence victims, a claim that Reynolds disputes vehemently.

During closing arguments on Wednesday, Bennett told the court that Reynolds believed Higgins had indeed taken the jacket, which was left in a goodwill box in Reynolds’ office. He suggested that if Higgins did take the jacket, it would be indicative of her lack of respect for her former employer, thus complicating the defamation case. “She probably did (take the jacket),” Bennett said, asserting that the senator could not have been accused of harassment if she genuinely believed the theft occurred.

Higgins, however, has countered that she took the jacket from the goodwill box in an act of goodwill after leaving Parliament House on the morning of the alleged rape. Her defence argues that any criticism of Reynolds’ handling of the case was justified and truthful.

The trial also examines claims that Reynolds’ comments on Spotlight were not intended to harass Higgins. Bennett argued that Reynolds was positioned in a state of neutrality during the interview, and any criticisms of her should be viewed through this lens.

The court heard that the defamation suit also targets several social media posts made by Higgins and Sharaz. One contentious post accused Reynolds of trying to silence sexual assault victims, a claim Bennett argues is defamatory. He asserts that Reynolds’ actions were aligned with preventing media exploitation of victims, not silencing them.

Further complicating the case, Bennett presented text messages between Higgins and Sharaz that he claims show the couple mocking Reynolds. The messages, read out in court, suggested the couple was making light of Reynolds’ hospitalization following intense parliamentary questioning. “Linda has delayed her return to work hahah,” one message read. Bennett argued that these texts illustrated a deliberate campaign to harm Reynolds and destabilize the Morrison government.

The court also discussed other aspects of Reynolds’ conduct during the criminal trial of Bruce Lehrmann. Bennett clarified that Reynolds’ interest in the trial, including her request for daily court transcripts to be sent to her lawyer, was reasonable given the ongoing defamation proceedings and public slander she faced.

The trial has been marked by a series of intense legal arguments and personal attacks, with each side presenting evidence to support their claims. The outcome will have significant implications for the reputations of both parties involved and may influence the broader discourse on how sexual assault allegations are handled publicly and legally.

Analysis:

Political: This defamation trial has significant political ramifications, given the high-profile nature of both parties involved. Senator Linda Reynolds, a prominent figure in Australian politics, is at the center of the controversy. The outcome of this trial could affect public perception of Reynolds and the broader political landscape, particularly in relation to the handling of sexual assault allegations and public accountability.

Social: The trial highlights the social dynamics surrounding sexual assault allegations and their treatment in the public eye. The accusations of theft and defamation underscore the complex interplay between personal grievances and public discourse. It reflects ongoing societal debates about victimhood, justice, and the appropriate responses to allegations of sexual misconduct.

Racial: While the trial itself does not directly address racial issues, the broader context of how such cases are handled can intersect with racial and social dynamics. In high-profile cases, the race and background of the individuals involved can influence public perceptions and media coverage, though this case primarily focuses on personal and political reputations.

Gender: Gender issues are central to the trial, given that it revolves around allegations of sexual assault and the subsequent public and legal battles. The case brings to light the challenges women face in seeking justice and the impact of public scrutiny on their personal and professional lives. The defence’s accusations of theft and the social media posts’ content reflect broader societal attitudes toward gender and sexual assault.

Economic: The economic implications of the trial are more indirect, involving reputational damage rather than financial considerations. However, the case has economic consequences in terms of legal costs and potential impacts on the careers of those involved. The public nature of the trial also influences the broader economic landscape, including media coverage and public opinion.