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 informed the WA Supreme Court docket on Wednesday throughout his closing arguments that the senator believed her junior staffer stole her Carla Zampatti jacket.

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

‘She most likely did (take the jacket),’ Mr Bennett informed the court docket.

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 Get together staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

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

On the time, Mr Lehrmann was within the means of launching his personal defamation proceedings, Mr Bennett informed the court docket.

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 on account 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 yr when the Federal Court docket decided, on the stability of possibilities, that he had raped Ms Higgins at Parliament Home. He’s interesting that call.

Mr Bennett informed the court docket it was defamatory of Ms Higgins to say the senator needed to silence victims of sexual assault.

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

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

Mr Bennett informed the court docket nobody had mentioned the laws in NSW was making an attempt to silence victims.

He mentioned it was not a query of silencing victims however quite a criticism must be labored by the felony 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 decide mentioned the modification contemplated by the senator would make it a brand new offence that will prohibit an individual, which was near silence.

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

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

Mr Bennett mentioned a textual content dialog between Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz confirmed the pair ‘mocking’ the senator for being hospitalised after Ms Higgins went public together 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 court docket 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 might be strolling in it,’ messages learn.

Mr Bennett mentioned the messages ‘mock the very fact the assault initiated on my shopper has brought about her to go on sick go away’.

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

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

‘Why off the document?’ he questioned.

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

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

Mr Bennett mentioned the defence’s imputation Senator Reynolds engaged in questionable conduct throughout Mr Lehrmann’s felony trial targeted on the conduct of the senator’s associate Robert Reid.

He mentioned it couldn’t be severely contested as a result of the senator’s associate attended the felony trial every day, and she or he needed to know what was mentioned in court docket.

Senator Reynolds was a witness within the trial and was working in Rwanda when felony proceedings towards Mr Lehrmann began within the ACT Magistrates Court docket.

Throughout the felony trial, Senator Reynolds despatched Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Steve Whybrow a textual content message asking if the day by day court docket transcripts might be despatched to her lawyer.

Mr Bennett argued it was affordable for his shopper to have an interest within the felony 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 mentioned it was related to what was being mentioned within the felony 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 court docket on the felony trial it might have been about something.

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

Mr Bennett informed the court docket Ms Higgins’ proof throughout her private damage declare with the Commonwealth was full fiction.

He mentioned when she was requested about in search of counselling and being supplied assist within the wake of her allegations, her solutions have been mistaken.

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

‘Each paragraph in these particulars is mistaken.’

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

The senator has maintained she was by no means given a chance to defend any allegations that have been made towards 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 concerning the settlement that was marked confidential and privileged.

He informed the court docket not a single sentence within the letter was a scrap of authorized privilege or was about Ms Higgins.

He mentioned this was not harassing Ms Higgins, however the senator was involved concerning the conduct of the Commonwealth and the way the settlement was reached.

Mr Bennett mentioned 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 mentioned a social media put up created by Ms Higgins blended truth with opinion, arguing that altered the evaluation of the opinion when the underlying details have been mistaken.

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

‘You may’t gloss over the requirement to behave fairly,’ he mentioned.