‘Lying cow’: Senator defends Higgins slur

EXCLUSIVE

Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds has defended her decision to call Brittany Higgins a “lying cow” and hold an employment meeting in the same room where she was allegedly raped, insisting she never “raised any objection to the location of the meeting”.

In new documents released by the Western Australia Supreme Court, Senator Reynolds has outlined why she rejects any suggestion she mishandled the rape allegation in the high-stakes defamation matter.

The Liberal Senator has previously revealed she mortgaged her house to fund the defamation trial.

Meanwhile, Brittany Higgins, who has recently revealed she is pregnant, says she’s selling her French home to help pay for her legal defence.

Senator Reynolds is suing Ms Higgins and her husband over social media posts she argues involved “malice” and is asking for her former employee to pay for medical bills including visits to a psychologist and a cardiologist.

In her statement of claim, Senator Reynolds has accused Ms Higgins and her now-husband David Sharaz of using the “false” allegations of a political cover-up as a weapon to inflict immediate political damage on her.

Lying cow claims aired

In the new documents, the Liberal Senator has revealed she described Ms Higgins as a “lying cow” in the days after the story broke in 2021 as a “spontaneous” reaction to “false” claims on Channel 10’s The Project that the young staffer wasn’t supported.

The comments to a small group of staff were later leaked to the media and reported, prompting Ms Higgins to threaten to sue for defamation and Senator Reynolds settling the matter.

Despite that apology, Senator Reynolds said she never conceded she mishandled the alleged rape.

“The apology was not an admission that she had in fact mishandled the matter or failed to offer appropriate support to the defendant (Brittany Higgins),’’ Senator Reynolds’ statement of claim states.

“(Her) comment was a spontaneous private reaction to the defendant’s false accusation.”

In an amended defence, Ms Higgins’ legal team notes that on March 2, 2021, media reports emerged that Senator Reynolds had said in front of her staff that the defendant was a “lying cow”.

“The same day, the plaintiff released a public statement apologising to the defendant and stating that she was “deeply sorry … for these remarks and for any hurt and distress they have caused,’’ Ms Higgins defence states.

“The Prime Minister publicly rebuked the plaintiff for the comment, saying it was “offensive and wrong”.

On 21 March 2021, the plaintiff and defendant reached a settlement in relation to Ms Higgins’ claim that the “lying cow” comment was defamatory of her.

The settlement was on a “no admissions” basis but included the plaintiff giving the defendant another public apology and paying compensation to her, which the defendant donated (except for legal fees) to a sexual assault charity.

“The plaintiff mishandled the Rape Allegation and failed to support the defendant, including by undermining her credibility and making allegations about her honesty after the defendant had disclosed the Rape Allegation in the televised interview with The Project,’’ the defence states.

“In all of the circumstances set out … the plaintiff mishandled the Rape Allegation and failed to support the defendant.”

What Reynolds’ statement of claim says

Senator Reynolds says in her statement of claim that her chief of staff Fiona Brown had told her before an April 1, 2019, meeting that Ms Higgins said she remembered Bruce Lehrmann “on top of her”.

But she says that “the defendant had not made any allegation of rape or non-consensual sexual activity”.

She argues this reflects Ms Higgins’ interview with news.com.au where she said she initially did not expressly use the word rape.

“I said that he was on top of me. I think for the longest time I was really weird about actually saying it was rape,’’ Ms Higgins told news.com.au.

“I don’t know why. I was very delicate about it. I think from our exchange she understood the inference.”

Complaints about meeting in room where alleged rape occurred

In the legal documents, the decision to call Ms Higgins to an employment meeting in the same room where she was allegedly raped is canvassed.

A spokesman for the Morrison Government conceded in 2021 that holding the meeting in that room was a mistake.

“During this process, the Minister and a senior staff member met with the staff member in the Minister’s office. Given the seriousness of the incident, the meeting should have been conducted elsewhere,” a spokesman said.

But in legal documents filed in the WA Supreme Court, Senator Reynolds has defended the decision, with her lawyers arguing that “the defendant had not raised any objection to the location of the meeting.

“Further, Senator Reynolds argues that she and chief of staff Ms Fiona Brown supported Ms Higgins by taking the following steps in accordance with verbal advice received from Ms Lauren Barons of the Department of Finance, making the defendant aware of the Employee Assistance Program and other support services available; notifying the defendant that should she choose to, she is able to pursue a complaint, including a complaint made to the police”.

Why Senator Reynolds didn’t tell the Prime Minister

Senator Reynolds says that she “did not inform the Prime Minister’s Office directly of the allegation because to do so would be against the advice of Department of Finance adviser (Ms Barons) and AFP Assistant Commissioner (Leanne) Close, and the defendant’s desire to keep the mater private but otherwise informed the Prime Minister’s Office of the security breach.

When Brittany Higgins informed Senator Reynolds she had accepted a role with Senator Cash, the Liberal Senator said she asked her whether she wanted to inform Senator Cash of what had been going on (referring to the rape allegation and the police investigation).

“The defendant looked horrified and said no,’’ the legal document states.

Brittany Higgins acted with ‘malice’

In a statement of claim released by the WA Supreme Court on Tuesday night, Senator Reynolds outlines her defamation case including that Ms Higgins and her husband acted with “malice” in the social media posts.

In response, Ms Higgins argues that her posts to Instagram and Twitter were justified — and will argue they were substantially true.

In July 2023, the former media adviser wrote on her Instagram account: “These are just headlines from today”.

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament. My former boss who has publicly apologised for mishandling my rape allegation.

“Who has had to publicly apologise to me after defaming me in the workplace? This has been going on for years now. It is time to stop”.

Linda Reynolds accused of leaking documents about Brittany Higgins compensation payout

Senator Reynolds is also accused of repeatedly leaking confidential correspondence about Ms Higgins’ compensation payout to the media in the legal documents filed in the WA Supreme Court.

Her legal team argues this conduct is alleged to constitute an ongoing “campaign of harassment”.

The claims follows legal discovery of Senator Reynolds’ emails, texts and correspondence regarding the rape allegation.

The amended defence claims Senator Reynolds leaked confidential legal correspondence to The Australian’s columnist Janet Albrechtsen.

“In the circumstances, the plaintiff has engaged in a campaign of harassment against the defendant, including by providing confidential information to the media,’’ Ms Higgins’ defence alleges.

In response, Senator Reynolds’ legal team argued that the conduct described did not constitute harassing Ms Higgins.

“The information provided to Ms Albrechtsen by the plaintiff (Senator Reynolds) was information in the plaintiff’s own possession and the plaintiff was entitled to deal with it,’’ the response states.

“The plaintiff was entitled to question the circumstances of the defendant’s personal injury claim against the Commonwealth in circumstances where such a claim was founded on matters that were disputed by the plaintiff.”