Brittany Higgins stole famous Carla Zampatti jacket, Linda Reynolds’ lawyer claims – as sensational defamation case draws to a close

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer accuses Brittany Higgins of stealing a designer jacket from her former boss as a high-profile defamation case between the two draws to a close.

Senator Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett told the Western Australian Supreme Court during his submissions on Wednesday that the senator believed her junior associate had stolen her Carla Zampatti jacket.

Mr Bennett said that since the Senator was convinced that Ms Higgins had stolen the jacket, Senator Reynolds could not have harassed her former colleague.

“That’s probably what she did (take the coat),” Mr Bennett told the court.

Ms Higgins has previously testified that she took the jacket from a collection box in the senator’s office after leaving parliament on the morning of the alleged rape by Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

Mr Bennett said the senator did not harass Ms Higgins when she gave an interview on Channel 7’s Spotlight programme. He told the court his client could not be criticised because she was in a position of safe neutrality when she gave the interview.

Mr Lehrmann was in the process of launching his own defamation proceedings at the time, Mr Bennett told the court.

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

The attorney representing Linda Reynolds accuses Brittany Higgins (pictured with her husband David Sharaz) of stealing a designer jacket from her former boss

Senator Reynolds’ (pictured) lawyer Martin Bennett told the Supreme Court of Western Australia during his submissions on Wednesday that the senator believed her junior staffer had stolen her Carla Zampatti jacket

The reports were critical of Senator Reynolds’ handling of Ms Higgins’ allegation that she was raped in Parliament House by her then colleague Mr Lehrmann in 2019.

He was charged with rape and was due to go to trial in 2022, but the trial was halted due to juror misconduct.

The charges were dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence.

Mr Lehrmann lost a civil libel case in April this year when the Federal Court ruled on the balance of probabilities that he had raped Ms Higgins in Parliament House. He is appealing that decision.

Mr Bennett told the court it was defamatory of Ms Higgins when he said the senator wanted to silence victims of sexual abuse.

He said the senator had spoken out about preventing the media from exploiting victims who had filed complaints.

The senator referred to legislation in New South Wales that prohibits victims of sexual abuse from speaking to the media before a criminal case has been started.

Mr Bennett told the court that no one had said the legislation in NSW was intended to silence victims.

According to him, it was not about silencing victims, but rather that the complaint should be handled through the criminal justice system.

Judge Paul Tottle interrupted the lawyer to say that the change in the law that was the subject of the complaint would prevent victims from speaking to the media about what happened to them.

The judge said the amendment the senator proposed would create a new crime, prohibiting a person from remaining silent, which would be close to silence.

Mr Bennett argued that the senator’s intention was to prosecute the perpetrators, not to make things more difficult for them.

Text messages between Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz showed how the couple organised a campaign to harm Senator Reynolds and bring down the Morrison government, the court was told earlier on Wednesday.

Mr Bennett said a text conversation between Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz showed the two “mocking” the senator for being hospitalised after Ms Higgins went public with her rape allegations.

The senator was hospitalised after collapsing in parliament and was questioned intensively by Labor senators over Ms Higgins’ allegations.

Messages were read out in court in which the two discussed the senator taking time off from work and speaking to reporters about her.

“Linda has postponed her return to work hahah” and “what a shit Linda, you’re walking into it,” the messages read.

Mr Bennett said the messages “make a mockery of the fact that the attack on my client caused her to become ill”.

He said Ms Higgins had told Samantha Maiden, political editor at news.com.au, “off the record” that she did not believe the senator should lose her job.

It was widely reported in the media that it was no longer tenable for Senator Reynolds to hold the Department of Defense.

“Why secret?” he asked.

“Didn’t she want Maiden to publish her honest, candid opinions after the allegations she made against Reynolds?” Mr Bennett asked.

Ms Higgins has previously testified that she took the jacket from a goodwill box in the senator’s office after leaving Parliament House on the morning of the alleged rape by Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

Senator Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett told the Western Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday that as the senator believed Ms Higgins had stolen the jacket, Senator Reynolds could not have harassed her former staff member.

Other text messages between the two show Higgins wiping her phone before reopening her complaint about the alleged rape to the Australian Federal Police.

Mr Bennett said the defence’s allegation that Senator Reynolds engaged in questionable conduct during the criminal case against Mr Lehrmann focused on the conduct of the senator’s partner, Robert Reid.

He said it could not be seriously contested because the senator’s partner was present at the trial every day and she wanted to know what had been said in court.

Senator Reynolds was a witness at the trial and was working in Rwanda when the criminal case against Mr Lehrmann began in the ACT Magistrates Court.

During the criminal trial, Senator Reynolds sent a text message to Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer, Steve Whybrow, asking for the daily transcripts to be sent to her lawyer.

Mr Bennett argued that it was reasonable for his client to have an interest in the criminal proceedings as she had been defamed for the past 18 months and Ms Higgins had sued her in a separate case.

Mr Bennett said it was relevant to the civil case, given what was said in the criminal trial. However, she did not ask for the transcript herself, but for it to be sent to her lawyer.

Senator Linda Reynolds (right) was hospitalized after collapsing in parliament

Mr Bennett added that when Mr Reid was seen outside court with Mr Whybrow during the criminal trial, it could have been about anything.

He said this did not mean the senator had engaged in questionable behavior.

Mr Bennett told the court that Ms Higgins’ statements during her personal injury claim with the Commonwealth were complete fiction.

He said that when she was asked if she wanted to see a psychologist and if she had been offered support following her allegations, her answers were wrong.

“The only thing she did right was when a federal election was called,” he said.

“Every paragraph in these details is wrong.”

Senator Reynolds was excluded from the mediation process when a $2.4 million settlement was reached between Ms Higgins and the Commonwealth, the court was told.

The senator has maintained that she was never given the opportunity to defend herself against the allegations made against her in the settlement.

She considered that the Commonwealth had engaged in a degree of corruption surrounding the compensation payments.

The senator reported the settlement to the National Anti-Corruption Committee so it could investigate the circumstances.

Mr Bennett argued that the senator had the right to provide journalists with a letter she had received about the settlement that was marked as confidential and privileged.

He told the court that there was not a single sentence in the letter that contained even a shred of legal privilege or was about Ms Higgins.

He said he was not troubling Ms Higgins with this, but that the Senator was concerned about the conduct of the Commonwealth and the manner in which the settlement had been reached.

According to Mr. Bennett, the concept of a 24-hour news cycle is simply a fallacy of people who spend their entire lives on the Internet or on their phones.

He said Ms Higgins mixed facts with opinions in a social media post, which he said changed the analysis of the opinion when the underlying facts were wrong.

Mr Bennett said the case was a distortion of the truth and there was no public interest in misinformation.

“You cannot ignore the requirement to act reasonably,” he said.