Judgment day for Brittany Higgins
Justice Paul Tottle will deliver his verdict in the defamation case against Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz in the WA Supreme Court next Wednesday.
Ms Reynolds sued the pair over a series of social media posts they made in 2022 and 2023, claiming they damaged her reputation.
Ms Higgins relied on the truth defence claiming the social media posts were substantially true during the defamation proceedings. A verdict in former senator Linda Reynolds' defamation case against Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz will be handed down in the WA Supreme Court on August 27. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia Former senator Linda Reynolds brought the defamation proceedings after social media posts made by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia
The posts were critical of Ms Reynolds' handling of Ms Higgins' allegation she was raped in the senator's office at Parliament House in 2019 by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann.
He was charged with rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.
The charge was dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence.
Mr Lehrmann lost a subsequent civil defamation case in April last year when the Federal Court determined, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins at Parliament House.
He is appealing the decision.
Private text messages and emails between federal ministers, senators, staffers, press gallery journalists and lawyers were laid bare during the five-week blockbuster trial last year.
Ms Higgins' defence team called for the action to be dismissed entirely at the end of the high-stakes legal battle. Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz sold the French chateau they called home to pay for legal fees. Credit: Supplied
Ms Reynolds, who has retired from politics, mortgaged her home in a bid to clear her name.
Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz sold their French home to pay for legal fees, as she maintained her version of events about what happened to her at Parliament House.
It was revealed Ms Reynolds was seeking more than half a million dollars in damages.
Her lawyer Martin Bennett asked the court to 'nail the lies' Ms Higgins allegedly perpetuated after making her rape allegation public in 2021.
The court was told Ms Higgins 'grossly defamed' her former boss in social media posts shared years later.
Ms Higgins' defence lawyer Rachael Young said it was a series of events in 2021 that led to the then-Senator Reynolds' distress and reputational damage, not social media posts created by her client two years later.
Ms Young argued Ms Reynolds' decline was caused by backlash from her referring to Ms Higgins as a 'lying cow', a senate grilling over the allegations, her hospitalisation, losing the defence ministry and missing out on a shadow ministry under Peter Dutton. Ms Higgins' defence lawyer Rachael Young argued it was a series of events in 2021 that led to Ms Reynolds distress and reputational damage, not social media posts created by her client two years later. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia
She said the former senator tried to besmirch the people she blamed for her political demise, namely Ms Higgins, who continued to face the heaviest burden in all this.
Two dozen witnesses were called to give evidence including former prime minister Scott Morrison.
A who's who of the nation's parliament, media and legal circles were dragged into the proceedings as diary entries, minutes and communications between senators, staffers, journalists, police officers and lawyers were exposed in court.
The trial centred around what happened in the aftermath of Ms Higgins speaking out about her alleged rape in a news.com.au article and The Project interview that were published on February 15, 2021, two years after the alleged incident.
Ms Reynolds' lawyer Martin Bennett argued in court statements that Ms Higgins made in those media interviews and in her personal injury claim were wrong and that she had lied. Former senator Linda Reynolds lawyer Martin Bennett argued every fairytale needs a villain. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia
He said his client had been cast as a villain in Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz's fictional story that alleged Ms Reynolds had tried to cover-up a rape.
'Every fairytale needs a villain, and in 2020 or 2021, Ms Higgins and her then-partner and now-husband, Mr Sharaz, cast Ms Reynolds in that role for their fictional story of a cover-up of the rape,' Mr Bennett told the WA Supreme Court.
'The fact she had been raped was traumatic and terrible but it needed something more to attract the attention, to attract media interest, to attract the promotion of Ms Higgins, so she made it a political sex scandal.'
Ms Young argued the matter was not, and never had been, a 'fairytale' for her client saying the comments were misplaced, harassing and retraumitising.
Ms Young told the court Ms Reynolds had picked the 'wrong target' for the hurt and distress and that her reputation was already 'baked in' when her client posted to social media in the years that followed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
9 hours ago
- Perth Now
Judgment day for Brittany Higgins
A judgment in the long running defamation suit launched by former senator Linda Reynolds against her former junior staffer Brittany Higgins will be handed down next week. Justice Paul Tottle will deliver his verdict in the defamation case against Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz in the WA Supreme Court next Wednesday. Ms Reynolds sued the pair over a series of social media posts they made in 2022 and 2023, claiming they damaged her reputation. Ms Higgins relied on the truth defence claiming the social media posts were substantially true during the defamation proceedings. A verdict in former senator Linda Reynolds' defamation case against Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz will be handed down in the WA Supreme Court on August 27. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia Former senator Linda Reynolds brought the defamation proceedings after social media posts made by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia The posts were critical of Ms Reynolds' handling of Ms Higgins' allegation she was raped in the senator's office at Parliament House in 2019 by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann. He was charged with rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct. The charge was dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence. Mr Lehrmann lost a subsequent civil defamation case in April last year when the Federal Court determined, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins at Parliament House. He is appealing the decision. Private text messages and emails between federal ministers, senators, staffers, press gallery journalists and lawyers were laid bare during the five-week blockbuster trial last year. Ms Higgins' defence team called for the action to be dismissed entirely at the end of the high-stakes legal battle. Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz sold the French chateau they called home to pay for legal fees. Credit: Supplied Ms Reynolds, who has retired from politics, mortgaged her home in a bid to clear her name. Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz sold their French home to pay for legal fees, as she maintained her version of events about what happened to her at Parliament House. It was revealed Ms Reynolds was seeking more than half a million dollars in damages. Her lawyer Martin Bennett asked the court to 'nail the lies' Ms Higgins allegedly perpetuated after making her rape allegation public in 2021. The court was told Ms Higgins 'grossly defamed' her former boss in social media posts shared years later. Ms Higgins' defence lawyer Rachael Young said it was a series of events in 2021 that led to the then-Senator Reynolds' distress and reputational damage, not social media posts created by her client two years later. Ms Young argued Ms Reynolds' decline was caused by backlash from her referring to Ms Higgins as a 'lying cow', a senate grilling over the allegations, her hospitalisation, losing the defence ministry and missing out on a shadow ministry under Peter Dutton. Ms Higgins' defence lawyer Rachael Young argued it was a series of events in 2021 that led to Ms Reynolds distress and reputational damage, not social media posts created by her client two years later. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia She said the former senator tried to besmirch the people she blamed for her political demise, namely Ms Higgins, who continued to face the heaviest burden in all this. Two dozen witnesses were called to give evidence including former prime minister Scott Morrison. A who's who of the nation's parliament, media and legal circles were dragged into the proceedings as diary entries, minutes and communications between senators, staffers, journalists, police officers and lawyers were exposed in court. The trial centred around what happened in the aftermath of Ms Higgins speaking out about her alleged rape in a article and The Project interview that were published on February 15, 2021, two years after the alleged incident. Ms Reynolds' lawyer Martin Bennett argued in court statements that Ms Higgins made in those media interviews and in her personal injury claim were wrong and that she had lied. Former senator Linda Reynolds lawyer Martin Bennett argued every fairytale needs a villain. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia He said his client had been cast as a villain in Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz's fictional story that alleged Ms Reynolds had tried to cover-up a rape. 'Every fairytale needs a villain, and in 2020 or 2021, Ms Higgins and her then-partner and now-husband, Mr Sharaz, cast Ms Reynolds in that role for their fictional story of a cover-up of the rape,' Mr Bennett told the WA Supreme Court. 'The fact she had been raped was traumatic and terrible but it needed something more to attract the attention, to attract media interest, to attract the promotion of Ms Higgins, so she made it a political sex scandal.' Ms Young argued the matter was not, and never had been, a 'fairytale' for her client saying the comments were misplaced, harassing and retraumitising. Ms Young told the court Ms Reynolds had picked the 'wrong target' for the hurt and distress and that her reputation was already 'baked in' when her client posted to social media in the years that followed.
Perth Now
10 hours ago
- Perth Now
Duelling roundtables hit Canberra
Nationals senator Matt Canavan says expanding Australia's economy will require a smaller government following a his own economic reform roundtable challenging Jim Chalmers' three-day summit. The Queensland senator labelled the official talks, which canvassed reducing regulation to boost efficiencies in housing, as a 'fake productivity roundtable'. Instead Senator Canavan said his 'public' table was open to media and involved participants including the Productivity Commission's first chair, Gary Banks, and former assistant Treasury secretary David Pearl. Participants discussed the importance of eliminating bracket creep, reducing growth of the NDIS, scrapping net-zero targets and fiscal discipline. Senator Canavan advocated for less intervention from Canberra, saying that 'if we want our economy to be bigger, we need our government to be smaller'. 'The overburdensome red tape in our housing sector, construction sectors and others are holding our nation back,' he said. Queensland senator Matt Canavan hosted his own productivity roundtable in parliament on Wednesday. NewsWire/ Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'The ineffective interventions in our energy market, such as the reckless and destructive rush to renewables, and the futile and failing net zero policies, are restricting the latent potential of our great nation. 'We need to stop Canberra from telling people what car they can drive, what power they should use, what food they can even eat.' Prof Banks also took aim at Labor for high government spending, which had strained private sector growth. 'Unfortunately, attention to regulation has been more about increasing, rather than reducing it or improving it, and the government's productivity agenda is mainly a spending agenda,' he said. Economic Reform Roundtable attendees were invited to the Lodge for drinks after day 2 of the meeting. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Steven Kennedy and CBA chief executive Matt Comyn arrive at the Lodge. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Meanwhile official talks focused on slashing regulation, with participants largely supporting a pause to the National Construction Code amid criticisms the overbearing regulations weigh down housing approvals and increase costs. While there was general consensus on the need to reduce regulation to speed up housing approvals, Wentworth teal MP Allegra Spender said participants did not agree to whether the code should be paused or for new changes to be delayed until the next review due in 2029. Although there were concerns around whether this would affect environment standards, she described discussions as 'constructive'. 'I think that we should come out with something on the Construction Code,' she said. 'I think the government is looking at how to get the construction code right from a point of view of not making too many unnecessary changes that makes it just more expensive to build.' Allegra Spender tipped an announcement on pausing or freezing the National Construction Code following the summit. NewsWire/ Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey, who attended the roundtable representing the states, said there was 'pretty strong consensus emerging that that is a sensible step forward'. 'Regardless of what's in the National Construction Code, states already have strong rules around building safety, building standards, energy efficiency, and so from our perspective,' he said. 'If the National Code is frozen, it gives us a bit more time to get the interactions between national standards and state standards clear and sorted, but equally, give a lot of confidence to people who are looking to build right now.' However former Labor cabinet minister Ed Husic, who didn't participate in the roundtable, said he would be 'concerned about a pause to the National Construction Code,' and said it would a repeat of a 'bad mistake of the Coalition'. However he conceded the code was 'in a funk,' and said a review was a better option. 'Think about the fact that the last time we put pause in the National Construction Code we ended up having to scramble and put on hold a whole host of changes,' he told the ABC. 'That makes really hard for the construction sector the building sector to deal with a lot of changes at once. There is a much more sensible way to get it done.'
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Lehrmann called 'national joke' on return to lion's den
Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
