Reynolds, Lehrmann and the business of reputation reparations

Managing editor Michelle Pini discusses legal stouches and reputations following Linda Reynolds' defamation win against former staffer Brittany Higgins.

*CONTENT WARNING: This article discusses rape

LIBERAL EX-SENATOR LINDA REYNOLDS has won her defamation case against former employee, Brittany Higgins, who was raped by another former employee, Bruce Lehrmann, in the Senator’s parliamentary office back in 2019.

Lehrmann was charged with sexual assault in 2022, but the proceedings were aborted due to juror misconduct. A second criminal trial was not pursued due to concerns for Ms Higgins' mental health. In a later defamation trial brought by Lehrmann, it was found that on the balance of probabilities, he had raped Higgins.

Many may recall Ms Reynolds referring to her staffer at the time of the allegations against Lehrmann as “a lying cow”, for which the former senator later publicly apologised.

Justice Paul Tottle made his finding on Wednesday (27 August), almost 12 months after the five-week defamation trial began. When the court proceedings concluded back in September 2024, it was believed the ruling would be made “after Christmas” — though no one said which Christmas.

Justice Tottle was required to rule on four claims of defamation, one claim of conspiracy and one claim of breach of contract by Reynolds. Tottle found that Reynolds was defamed by three of the four tweets in question – posted by Ms Higgins in 2022 and 2023 – dismissed the conspiracy claim and upheld the one about "breach of contract".

The Brittany Higgins 'diabolical plot to bring down the House' explained

Managing editor Michelle Pini discusses defamation proceedings against Brittany Higgins – as reported by The Australian – which include claims she 'plotted' to bring down the Coalition Government.

He ordered Ms Higgins to pay compensation to Ms Reynolds in the amount of $315,000 in damages, plus interest of $26,000, as well as yet-to-be-determined legal costs — which will not be insignificant.

Many legacy media outlets have referred to this latest episode in the never-ending saga as a case of "two aggrieved women".

A Conversation article by emeritus professor of law and criminal justice, Rick Sarre, details the legal context in which Tottle made his ruling. It also discusses the fact that WA defamation laws differ from those of the other states. WA has not adopted key reforms, such as the “serious harm threshold”, which requires plaintiffs to prove their reputation was significantly damaged by the alleged defamatory statements. (WA's failure to adopt these reforms will likely make it the defamation capital of the nation.)

The piece, which is informative, ends with the following observation:

‘So while many observers may shake their heads at the millions of dollars spent in legal fees by the key players in this particular saga, we can be grateful we have legal institutions (for those who can afford the exercise) available to hear the claims of plaintiffs and decide on matters accordingly, free from political and personal bias.’

Firstly, we humbly suggest that many observers are not simply shaking their heads at the millions spent on legal fees. We are shaking our heads at a legal system that appears to prioritise reputational damage of prominent people above physical, mental and emotional damage suffered by victims of crime.

We are shaking our heads at what it says about a society in which a woman can be raped by a co-worker at her place of work, which also happens to be Parliament House, the people’s house.

We are shaking our heads that she then has to prove that a crime was committed, her personal life publicly scrutinised for years on end.

We are shaking our heads that the criminal trial of an alleged perpetrator was aborted due to juror misconduct and a retrial abandoned, as it would be hazardous to the mental health of the victim, but the many defamation cases against this victim were nonetheless allowed to proceed, dragging on for years and likely bankrupting her in the process.

Our heads continue to shake at any public discourse that seeks to compare having one's reputation damaged as being equal to being raped by a colleague at one's place of work, and then somehow finds the former more egregious.

Independent Australia does not seek to question the Court ruling, since it was clearly done in accordance with the letter of the law.

We do, however, question a system that can allow a victim of a heinous crime to be further punished, seemingly without end and posit that this should cause an inordinate amount of head shaking indeed.

Ms Reynolds sued her former staffer – a rape victim – because she was offended by tweets Ms Higgins made about her, which Reynolds said damaged her reputation and the WA Court upheld her defamation claims. She has been "vindicated", according to many establishment media op-eds and rewarded for her efforts with a substantial financial gain.

Whether her reputation has been restored is another matter and one about which we cannot speculate.

Among the plethora of legal trials following this crime, in April 2024, Justice Michael Lee found in a separate defamation trial – instigated by Bruce Lehrmann – that on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann had raped Higgins. Lehrmann then appealed the findingand is awaiting the ruling.

What does the aftermath of the rape of Brittany Higgins say to rape victims?

What does it say about our legal system?

No legal system is perfect. But when a victim of a horrible crime, whose mental health precluded the perpetrator from being brought to justice, can still be paraded relentlessly before the world, subjected to endless harassment, media scrutiny and protracted legal battles, and then made to pay financially as well, it is time to look at what is broken in our system and address it.

Then there’s the question of reputation.

Ms Reynolds – who, it appears, is able to afford the exercise – has now been awarded a large sum for the damage caused to her reputation by Ms Higgins.

Reynolds has launched several other defamation cases – some already concluded – and is also suing the Commonwealth over Higgins' compensation, claiming the payout had the effect of “publicly affirming” Ms Higgins’ allegations against her. Reynolds is also taking legal action – including for negligence – against the law firm that acted for the Commonwealth in the case.

More Lehrmann trials, appeals and assorted legal stouches

As he faces trial for unrelated rape charges, Bruce Lehrmann is appealing the Federal Court findings in his defamation action against Network Ten and Senator Reynolds is seeking damages from Brittany Higgins.

Mr Lehrmann, who was found to have raped Brittany Higgins and is facing trial for an unrelated rape, is currently a free man who may also make money following all the legal proceedings brought by him.

The many eminent lawyers engaged in the countless court cases surrounding this crime have all been handsomely paid for their work — some will be paid by the victim of the rape.

And the victim?

In 2021, Reynolds reached a legal settlement withMs Higgins for calling her a "lying cow", publicly apologised and payed $10,000, which Ms Higgins donated to a rape crisis centre.

It appears the reputation of some is worth more than others.

Brittany Higgins, who was raped at her place of employment, was awarded $2.4 million in compensation by the Commonwealth in 2022.

Ms Higgins has been subjected to endless attacks on her reputation, called a lying cow by her boss and had every personal detail about herself and her family made available to be scrutinised by anyone with access to the internet.

She is now being made to pay for damaging the reputation of her former boss, possibly to her complete financial ruin.

We are shaking our heads that anyone can propose we should be grateful we have legal institutions for those who can afford the exercise, because most Australians cannot afford such legal exercises — whether these are ‘free from political and personal bias’ or not. Indeed, we would speculate a vast number of Australians can't even afford to engage a legal firm to write a letter on their behalf, since these generally start at around $1,000.

Finally, we are shaking our heads because defamation law, which exists to protect the reputational damage of only those who can afford it, clearly trumps the well-being of victims of crime.

If this article has raised any issues, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or online at 1800RESPECT.org.au.

Subscribe NOW to receive editorials like this one (usually only available to subscribers) directly to your inbox and access all our work for as little as $1.50 per week.

Follow managing editor Michelle Pini on Bluesky @michellepini.bsky.social and Independent Australia on Bluesky @independentaus.bsky.social, X/Twitter @independentaus and Facebook HERE.