Brittany Higgins stole well-known Carla Zampatti jacket, Linda Reynolds’ lawyer claims – because the sensational defamation trial involves an finish

The lawyer representing Linda Reynolds has accused Brittany Higgins of taking a designer jacket from her former boss, as a blockbuster defamation trial between the pair involves an finish.

Senator Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett instructed the WA Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday throughout his closing arguments that the senator believed her junior staffer stole her Carla Zampatti jacket.

Mr Bennett stated that because the senator believed Ms Higgins had stolen the jacket, Senator Reynolds couldn’t have been harassing her former staffer.

‘She in all probability did (take the jacket),’ Mr Bennett instructed the courtroom.

Ms Higgins has beforehand acknowledged she took the jacket from a goodwill field within the senator’s workplace after she left Parliament Home on the morning of the alleged rape by fellow Liberal Occasion staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

Mr Bennett stated the senator was not harassing Ms Higgins when she gave an interview on Channel 7’s Highlight present, telling the courtroom his shopper couldn’t be criticised for being ready of protected neutrality when she gave the interview.

On the time, Mr Lehrmann was within the means of launching his personal defamation proceedings, Mr Bennett instructed the courtroom.

Senator Reynolds is suing Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz over social media posts the pair made in 2022 and 2023.

The posts have been crucial of Senator Reynolds’ dealing with of Ms Higgins’ allegation she was raped in Parliament Home in 2019 by her then-colleague Mr Lehrmann.

He was charged with rape and confronted trial in 2022, however the trial was aborted because of juror misconduct.

The cost was dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to take care of his innocence.

Mr Lehrmann misplaced a subsequent civil defamation case in April this 12 months when the Federal Courtroom decided, on the steadiness of possibilities, that he had raped Ms Higgins at Parliament Home. He’s interesting that call.

Mr Bennett instructed the courtroom it was defamatory of Ms Higgins to say the senator wished to silence victims of sexual assault.

He stated the senator had spoken out about stopping the media from exploiting victims who had made a grievance.

In doing so, the senator pointed to NSW laws that forestalls victims of sexual assault from talking to the media earlier than a prison matter is prosecuted.

Mr Bennett instructed the courtroom nobody had stated the laws in NSW was attempting to silence victims.

He stated it was not a query of silencing victims however fairly a grievance must be labored via the prison justice system.

Justice Paul Tottle interrupted the lawyer, saying the impact of the change in regulation that was the subject material of the submission in query, would forestall victims discussing with the media what occurred to them.

The choose stated the modification contemplated by the senator would make it a brand new offence that may prohibit an individual, which was near silence.

Mr Bennett argued the senator’s place was to prosecute perpetrators, and to not make it tougher.

Textual content messages between Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz illustrate how the couple orchestrated a marketing campaign to harm Senator Reynolds and produce down the Morrison authorities, the courtroom was instructed earlier on Wednesday.

Mr Bennett stated a textual content dialog between Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz confirmed the pair ‘mocking’ the senator for being hospitalised after Ms Higgins went public along with her rape allegation.

The senator was hospitalised after she collapsed in parliament. She had confronted intense questioning by Labor senators over Ms Higgins’ allegations.

Messages have been learn out in courtroom displaying the pair discussing the senator taking day without work work, and speaking with journalists about her.

‘Linda has delayed her return to work hahah’ and ‘some s*** Linda you’re strolling in it,’ messages learn.

Mr Bennett stated the messages ‘mock the actual fact the assault initiated on my shopper has prompted her to go on sick go away’.

He stated Ms Higgins instructed information.com.au political editor Samantha Maiden ‘off the report’ that she didn’t assume the senator ought to lose her job.

It had been broadly reported within the media that it was not tenable for Senator Reynolds to carry the defence ministry.

‘Why off the report?’ he questioned.

‘Did she not need Maiden to publish, we are saying her real sincere perception after the allegations she made in opposition to Reynolds?’ Mr Bennett requested.

Different textual content messages between the pair revealed Ms Higgins cleared her cellphone out earlier than she reopened her grievance in regards to the alleged rape with the Australian Federal Police.

Mr Bennett stated the defence’s imputation Senator Reynolds engaged in questionable conduct throughout Mr Lehrmann’s prison trial centered on the conduct of the senator’s accomplice Robert Reid.

He stated it couldn’t be severely contested as a result of the senator’s accomplice attended the prison trial every day, and he or she wished to know what was stated in courtroom.

Senator Reynolds was a witness within the trial and was working in Rwanda when prison proceedings in opposition to Mr Lehrmann began within the ACT Magistrates Courtroom.

In the course of the prison trial, Senator Reynolds despatched Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Steve Whybrow a textual content message asking if the each day courtroom transcripts might be despatched to her lawyer.

Mr Bennett argued it was affordable for his shopper to have an interest within the prison trial as a result of she had been slandered for the previous 18 months, and was being sued by Ms Higgins in one other matter.

Mr Bennett stated it was related to what was being stated within the prison trial for the civil trial, however she didn’t ask for the transcript herself, she requested for the transcript to be despatched to her lawyer.

Mr Bennett added when Mr Reid was seen speaking to Mr Whybrow exterior the courtroom on the prison trial it might have been about something.

He stated it didn’t imply the senator engaged in questionable conduct.

Mr Bennett instructed the courtroom Ms Higgins’ proof throughout her private harm declare with the Commonwealth was full fiction.

He stated when she was requested about looking for counselling and being provided help within the wake of her allegations, her solutions have been fallacious.

‘The one factor she obtained proper was when the federal election was referred to as,’ he stated.

‘Each paragraph in these particulars is fallacious.’

Senator Reynolds was excluded from the mediation proceedings when a $2.4million settlement was made between Ms Higgins and the Commonwealth, the courtroom was instructed.

The senator has maintained she was by no means given a possibility to defend any allegations that have been made in opposition to her throughout the settlement.

She believed the Commonwealth had engaged in a degree of corruption surrounding the compensation cost.

The senator reported the settlement to the Nationwide Anti-Corruption Committee to research circumstances surrounding it.

Mr Bennett argued the senator was entitled to offer journalists with a letter she acquired in regards to the settlement that was marked confidential and privileged.

He instructed the courtroom not a single sentence within the letter was a scrap of authorized privilege or was about Ms Higgins.

He stated this was not harassing Ms Higgins, however the senator was involved in regards to the conduct of the Commonwealth and the way the settlement was reached.

Mr Bennett stated the idea of a 24 hour information cycle was solely a fallacy of thought by individuals who lived their life on the web or cellphone.

He stated a social media publish created by Ms Higgins blended reality with opinion, arguing that altered the evaluation of the opinion when the underlying info have been fallacious.

Mr Bennett stated the matter misrepresented the reality and there was no public curiosity in misinformation.

‘You possibly can’t gloss over the requirement to behave fairly,’ he stated.