The withdrawal of Higgins as a witness in Linda Reynolds’s defamation case impacts trial schedule and strategy

The defamation trial between Senator Linda Reynolds and her former staffer Brittany Higgins took a dramatic turn on Monday when Higgins’s legal team decided not to call her as a witness. This decision has reshaped the course of the high-profile case, now entering its 13th day in the WA Supreme Court.

The trial centres on Reynolds’s claims that Higgins’s social media posts defamed her. Originally, Higgins was set to testify next week, but her name has now been removed from the witness list. This shift was confirmed by Higgins’s lawyer, Rachael Young SC, who informed the court that Higgins would not be called to give evidence. Young cited Higgins’s health and the belief that the case could be won without her testimony as reasons for the decision.

Higgins, who is pregnant, would have had to travel from her home in France to Perth to testify. Medical documents were presented to the court to support the decision not to require her appearance. Reynolds’s lawyer, Martin Bennett, had anticipated this move and was prepared for the possibility that Higgins would not testify.

The trial was initially scheduled to last five weeks, with Higgins expected to take the stand for a full week starting next Monday. Her withdrawal as a witness could potentially expedite the trial’s conclusion, possibly wrapping up before the original end date of September 4. Bennett indicated that closing arguments could begin as early as Friday, though it might extend into the following week.

With Higgins no longer testifying, the volume of evidence to be reviewed has increased. The court will now have to handle over 56,000 pages of documents, including WhatsApp messages extracted from Higgins’s phone by the Australian Federal Police. Bennett emphasized that the absence of Higgins’s direct testimony does not necessarily weaken his client’s case but does present a different trial dynamic.

Senator Reynolds expressed disappointment about not having her testimony directly counter Higgins’s claims. Bennett relayed Reynolds’s frustration, noting that the inability to present her testimony in response to Higgins’s accusations was unsatisfactory.

The trial will continue with other witnesses. Fiona Brown, Reynolds’s former chief of staff, was slated to testify but will instead provide an affidavit due to her medical condition. Brown’s testimony is crucial as it pertains to her interactions with Higgins following the alleged rape incident in March 2019 involving Bruce Lehrmann. Although Lehrmann’s criminal trial ended in a mistrial and his appeal is ongoing, a civil court found in favour of Higgins’s account.

Other upcoming testimonies include those of several of Reynolds’s friends, who will discuss Reynolds’s mental and physical health in response to Higgins’s allegations. Journalist Samantha Maiden, who reported on Higgins’s allegations, will also testify later this week. Additionally, former Morrison government ministers Marise Payne and Anne Ruston are scheduled to provide evidence.

Analysis:

Political Perspective: The decision for Brittany Higgins not to testify highlights significant issues within the political and legal realms. It underscores the complexity of high-profile defamation cases involving public figures and the impact of such decisions on the judicial process. For Senator Linda Reynolds, the inability to directly challenge Higgins’s claims may alter the perceived strength of her case, potentially influencing public and political opinions regarding her conduct and the overall integrity of her defence. The case also reflects broader political implications, including how politicians and their staff handle allegations and the legal strategies employed in defamation lawsuits.

Social Perspective: Higgins’s withdrawal from the witness stand affects the social narrative surrounding the case. It shifts the focus from personal testimonies to documentary evidence and other witness accounts. This change may influence public perception of the credibility and impact of Higgins’s allegations and Reynolds’s defense. The trial has already been a focal point for discussions about sexual harassment, workplace conduct, and the handling of such allegations. The evolving nature of the trial continues to engage and shape societal views on these critical issues.

Racial Perspective: While the case primarily revolves around issues of defamation and personal conduct, it intersects with broader conversations about the representation and treatment of women in politics. The focus on Higgins, a former staffer, and her interactions with Reynolds, a senior politician, highlights ongoing discussions about gender dynamics and power structures in the workplace. Although not directly related to race, the case contributes to the discourse on how marginalized groups, including women and minority staffers, navigate allegations and legal challenges within hierarchical political environments.

Gender Perspective: The trial brings to light gender-specific issues, particularly concerning how female employees and public figures handle allegations of misconduct. Higgins’s role as a key witness and her subsequent withdrawal emphasize the gendered aspects of such legal battles. The implications of her testimony—or lack thereof—highlight the challenges women face in public and political arenas when confronting powerful figures. Additionally, the case reflects broader societal debates about the treatment of women who speak out against harassment and misconduct in male-dominated environments.

Economic Perspective: From an economic standpoint, the trial involves significant financial and legal costs. The extensive documentation and evidence review, along with the preparation for and conduct of the trial, contribute to substantial expenses for both parties. The trial’s impact on public finances and resources, including court costs and legal fees, underscores the economic implications of high-profile legal cases. Furthermore, the case may influence public and political perceptions of financial management and accountability within the political sphere.