Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

Remove this Banner Ad

yep.

And a reminder we are talking about Senator Linda Reynolds. A long standing Federal Senator and senior government minister here who joined the Liberal Party while at Uni and who, prior to becoming a Senator, held various senior positions in the Liberal Party including as a a campaign manager, deputy federal director, ministerial advisor, notably as chief of staff and senior adviser.

In those high profile political roles you would expect to be subject to targeted personal attacks on mainstream and social media, some of them certainly vicious and many factually wrong. Not to mention the attacks and rumour mongering made under parliamentary privilege that come to Ministers in the mad house of Parliamentary question time. A former Minister and still serving Senator who appeared on the ABC series Nemesis just a couple of months back to talk about her torrid experiences under successive Liberal PMs, including the bullying and victimisation of women MPs in her own party.

So knowing Reynolds' political background and career you would think that the social media posts from Brittany Higgins would have to be pretty bloody nasty/hateful/spiteful for her to take highly costly and public defamation action including diplomatic action in a foreign country to freeze the assets of Ms Higgins and her partner.

Especially given her target in here is a former fellow Liberal Party member and her own former staffer, who was raped in Reynolds office from a fellow Reynolds staffer after hours and went through years of humiliating highly public court and media appearances to have her rape formally acknowledged and her rapist finally called out.

Here are the two social media posts from Brittany Higgins that Linda Reynolds used to start her defamation action and which she says contributed to the 'enormous emotional cost' to her and her family:

One of them was an instagram post from Ms Higgins on 4 July last year referencing an SMH article where Reynolds accuses Federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfus of denying her government funding for legal assistance for representation during the Sofronoff Inquiry. Higgins' instagram post said:

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament,”

There was another post from Higgins on Twitter on 20 July last year that is also the subject of Reynolds' action:

Screenshot 2024-04-17 at 8.55.45 PM.png

I'll leave it to others to make their own judgement.

My own view on a current serving Federal MP and former Minister taking defamation action in this way and under these circumstances has been made clear in this thread many times.
What Reynolds wants, according to the referenced story, is that nobody can talk about being sexually assaulted unless they go through the whole thing with the police (which everyone, including the police acknowledge does the victim more harm than good).

SO Reynolds is ignoring everything LetHerSpeak is about. It's like Reynolds hadn't followed anything to do with this for the last decade.

So Reynolds IS responsible for perpetuating the cover-up of sexual assaults by not letting people speak about it.

I honestly cannot see how she thinks this is defamation. It's straight-forward.

Sexual Assault happens lots, but isn't reported enough so too many people get away with it.
Reynolds wants it reported less, therefore more people will get away with it.

For somebody in her position (and with a rape having occurred in her office) to be so oblivious to the systemic problems she wants to perpetuate, points at either complete indifference, or vindictiveness.
 
What exactly were the "allegations".

Weren't the tweets mostly along the lines of "this lady is picking on me and my boyfriend".

Was there a specific tweet that was accusing Reynolds of anything near a cover-up? What was the worst language used?

In my estimation Reynolds isn't personally offended, she's professionally taking revenge. Her career also suffered the moment the rape was covered up. Whether it was by her, or by the system, she's nowhere near as much a victim as Higgins.
I have listed the social media posts from Higgins above.

But Reynolds main target of attack relating to the cover up claims is Higgins' de-facto partner David Sharaz - specifically his multiple social media posts, including (from the statement of claim):

First, the statement of claim refers to a tweet authored and posted by Mr Sharaz on 27 January 2022, (27 January tweet) in which Mr Sharaz shared a webpage published by Senator Reynolds entitled 'Empowering Women'. In that tweet, Mr Sharaz wrote that 'there is a very real chance [Senator Reynolds] will be called to court this year to answer questions on her involvement in Brittany Higgins feeling pressured by her office not to continue with a complaint to police.' The 27 January tweet is alleged to give rise to the defamatory imputations that:
(a) Senator Reynolds pressured Ms Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint to the police; and
(b) that Senator Reynolds is a hypocrite in her advocacy for women's interests and empowerment.
Secondly, Senator Reynolds identified a tweet authored and posted by Mr Sharaz on 4 December 2022, in which he stated 'Senator Reynolds sent her husband in to watch a victim's cross-examination and was texting the defence team tips. Now, [Senator Reynolds] is leaking privileged information to the paper while [Ms Higgins] is fragile in a clinic. When will the bullying end [Senator Reynolds]?' That publication is alleged to give rise to the following defamatory imputations:
(a) Senator Reynolds interfered with the trial of criminal proceedings against Mr Lehrmann; and
(b) Senator Reynolds bullied, and continues to bully, Ms Higgins.
Thirdly, on 1 April 2022 Mr Sharaz authored and published a comment, which he left on a tweet by Senator Reynolds (1 April tweet). The tweet by Senator Reynolds included a statement that she was 'aghast but not surprised' about an aspect of the attitude of the Labor Party on an unrelated matter. Mr Sharaz commented on that tweet that he was 'aghast that despite everything you put a staffer through, you're still a minister but we can all be surprised.' That comment is alleged to give rise to the defamatory imputation that Senator Reynolds was not a fit and proper person to hold a position of Government minister.
Fourthly, on 3 December 2022 Mr Sharaz authored and published a comment on Senator Reynolds' Facebook page. The comment was in response to a previous comment left on Senator Reynolds' Facebook post, addressed to Senator Reynolds, in the following terms: 'how are you still in politics?? You destroyed Brittany Huggins (sic). You're a monster who deserves to be in jail.' Mr Sharaz responded expressly to that comment in the following terms: 'Thanks for reminding her. I hope she hears this every day until the day she dies.'
These social posts are imho without doubt offensive, defamatory and in-excusable. Sharaz may think he was supporting his partner in posting them but he was in fact doing exactly the opposite. It is completely understandable why Reynolds would feel personally aggrieved by them and seek reparations from Sharaz in response.

But it is necessary to repeat the final statement of Justice Solomon in his WA Supreme Court judgement in hearing the application from Linda Reynolds for security of costs against both Higgins and Sharaz:

This application has, necessarily, been exclusively concerned with the financial cost of the litigation. But money is not the only, and probably not the biggest cost. The human cost of litigation looms large. No one should imagine they can remain immune from the psychological stress and emotional pain of litigation of this nature. The human cost too can be crippling, sometimes insurmountable. As in all matters, the court urges, and is anxious to assist the parties to explore means of resolving the dispute without the necessity of a trial.
 
Last edited:
(a) Senator Reynolds pressured Ms Higgins not to proceed with a genuine complaint to the police
I think Higgins could probably easily outline how this had happened. A boss using an underling praising them (at one point) as evidence that they didn't ever feel any other way is ridiculous. Have we not all had a boss we told was doing a good job when, in fact, we thought they were sh!te?
Senator Reynolds sent her husband in to watch a victim's cross-examination and was texting the defence team tips.
Isn't this a fact? Wasn't Reynolds sending the Defence information?

'aghast that despite everything you put a staffer through, you're still a minister but we can all be surprised.'
Are people not allowed to hold, and share, political opinions that Minister Reynolds is unfit to be Minister? It's called for in Parliament every day one minister or another. I know she can't sue Parlt, but she could hardly say a comment on a social media post is wrecking her career in a material way compared to 100's of articles and comments in Hansard saying the same.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Isn't this a fact? Wasn't Reynolds sending the Defence information?
Drumgold said as much in a letter, but later withdrew his claims and the ACT had to settle over his claims, that included a formal apology.




Reynolds' husband turning up to a trial that involved false allegations against her is understandable, particularly bearing in mind, it was not live streamed like the recent civil case.

If he could afford the time, then who cares?! His wife has a vested interest in the case due to the false allegations made against her.
 
Is Reynolds suing Morrison for defamation?

"Morrison publicly criticised her (Reynolds) for not informing him when the incident occurred in 2019 that there was a rape allegation. The opposition in the Senate pursued her relentlessly and this week she had to correct information she’d given."


"Her detractors describe her as a “nice person” but a minister lacking the capacity or political authority to deal with the defence behemoth and its continuing problems such as the vexed submarine program."

This whole article is full of worse defamation than those social media posts.
 
Grinding Lip Sync Battle GIF
Apologies all: I tried to find a GIF that represented Reynolds with her axe to grind, and I guess the GIF algorithm thought I meant the other kind of grind.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Either way, we've got a verdict that says rape probably happened and that a cover-up probably didn't. Just find some middle ground FFS!

Like you, Reynolds still doesn't get that a person was raped in her office.
 
Like you, Reynolds still doesn't get that a person was raped in her office.
Didn’t she allegedly say to Brittany “this type of thing happens to women”? Or something of that nature?

Maybe Brittany was braver than her in speaking out about her experience, and it’s knocked her for a six.
 
Last edited:
Like you, Reynolds still doesn't get that a person was raped in her office.
I've stated that a rape probably happened in Reynolds' office for years now, 'champ'!

Unlike you, I can see that that is not the only wrong to have happened in the whole omnishambles.

Or perhaps more specifically, I and some others, can see wrongs from both sides of the political divide, whereas some have a laser-like focus on the omnishambles / cluster* from just one angle.

Higgins extending the olive branch last week and apologising for the hurt caused to Brown and Reynolds by her wrongs was a positive thing (despite having a bet each way on what exactly her wrongs have been).

Reynolds' response was harder in nature, seemingly wanting Higgins to admit that there was no direct threat to her job from Brown and Reynolds, that Justice Lee found "was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact".

I think Reynolds has to give that up personally. Let Higgins put it down to her affected memory as per her statement. If Reynolds goes too hard, then the omnishambles continues and may actually never end...
 
I've stated that a rape probably happened in Reynolds' office for years now, 'champ'!

Unlike you, I can see that that is not the only wrong to have happened in the whole omnishambles.


Still don't get it do you.
Somebody was raped.
The only other wrong that matters is that the perpetrator of that rape never had to answer in court.
 
Still don't get it do you.
Somebody was raped.
The only other wrong that matters is that the perpetrator of that rape never had to answer in court.
So in your world, being sexually assaulted means that you can accuse anyone of anything that you want even if false, that you’re able to politically weaponise the event and then you’re allowed to curate evidence that contradicts your story and get caught doing it, all with absolute impunity?!

Fortunately we have blokes like Justice Lee making judgements and not yourself! He made findings confirming the above in his verdict.
 
What Reynolds wants, according to the referenced story, is that nobody can talk about being sexually assaulted unless they go through the whole thing with the police (which everyone, including the police acknowledge does the victim more harm than good).

SO Reynolds is ignoring everything LetHerSpeak is about. It's like Reynolds hadn't followed anything to do with this for the last decade.

On this, as I've stated before and for the reasons in that post, I disagree with Reynolds' take on requiring a criminal investigation to have run its course before speaking to the media.

LetHerSpeak or LetUsSpeak is about the victim within a live criminal case not even being able to be identified without a court order, even if they wanted to.

I fully agree with the alleged victim's right to refuse anonymity if they choose, at the very least in situations where the alleged perpetrator is engaging in media campaigns of their own.

In Higgins' case however, there was no live criminal investigation and her alleged perpetrator wasn't even on the radar at the time of her interviews.

Then you throw in the fact that her interviews contained a metric * tonne of misremembered or false information, then you have something of a huge problem:

12 As we will also see, when examined properly and without partiality, the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts, but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies – trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke. But despite its logical and evidentiary flaws, Ms Higgins’ boyfriend selected and contacted two journalists and then Ms Higgins advanced her account to them, and through them, to others. From the first moment, the cover-up component was promoted and recognised as the most important part of the narrative. The various controversies traceable to its publication resulted in the legal challenge of determining what happened late one night in 2019 becoming much more difficult than would otherwise have been the case.

I doubt Lee could be more damning of The Project's story in the above statement.

I feel like there needs to be a solution here. One that doesn't impede the right to free speech and good quality investigative journalism, but then one that also ensures that this cluster* never happens again in the way it did.

One thing is for certain, having the Project team and all other journos subscribe to and adhere to a Code of Ethics would be a great start!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top