‘Dead’: Insta response over Lisa’s claim - news.com.au

Welcome to our coverage of Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation suit against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson.

Mr Lehrmann is suing the network and Ms Wilkinson over an interview with Brittany Higgins on The Project in which she alleged she was raped at Parliament House.

Mr Lehrmann was not identified during the broadcast but is arguing he was identifiable to friends and people at Parliament House.

He has strenuously denied the allegation and Ms Higgins’ rape trial was aborted with no findings against him.

Follow below for the latest updates.

Sharaz and Higgins hit back at Wilkinson

Ms Higgins and her fiancee David Sharaz have responded to Lisa Wilkinson’s claim that she did not regard Mr Sharaz as “a friend” when he first approached him over the rape allegation.

Justice Michael Lee grilled Ms Wilkinson on Friday about the nature of her relationship with Mr Sharaz and whether he was someone who should have been used as “a conduit” for questions to his partner.

Ms Wilkinson replied “no” when asked if they were friends in 2021.

“I had only ever met him once in my life,” she said.

Mr Sharaz, who is not a witness at the trial, appeared to respond to the blunt answer on Friday via his Instagram account.

“One thing I have learned over the last couple of years... is I use the terms ‘friend’ and ‘acquaintance’ interchangeably,” he said. “You would be shocked at how problematic this personal flaw has become.”

The post was accompanied by a sombre image of the couple’s beloved dog, Kingston, on a Gold Coast beach.

Ms Higgins then reposted the Instagram story to her own account, which has 64,000 followers.

“Dead,” she replied.

Wilkinson’s texts claimed senator was ‘lying through her teeth’

Ms Wilkinson sent a text message after Ms Higgins’ story broke saying that Defence Minister Linda Reynolds was “lying through her teeth” and that Labor’s Penny Wong was “magnificent”.

On Monday, February 15, 2021 the story was broken by news.com.au and dominated question time before Ms Higgins former boss, Senator Reynolds, was asked questions in the Senate.

The veteran broadcaster Ms Wilkinson then texted her producer.

“Okay. Have you been watching question time?” Ms Wilkinson asked.

“Lots of focus on the story. Penny Wong magnificent. Reynolds lying through her teeth.”

In court today Mr Richardson asked Ms Wilkinson if this was “an accurate reflection of your state of mind at that time at 2:45pm on the 15th of February?”.

“I can’t remember what I saw when I read that,” she replied.

Mr Richardson pointed out that the text message was sent at 2:45pm and referred to question time and that it “started at 2pm”.

Ms Wilkinson also said she “did not recall” her producer telling her that he had received further information from the Prime Minister’s office on the Monday — including a contemporaneous email discussing the allegations and text messages between Ms Higgins and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown.

At the time the material arrived, she speculated she was most likely in “hair and make up”.

“At that point in the afternoon, I would have been in the hair and makeup department,’’ she said.

“There would have been a lot of other people. So, taking phone calls in an environment where other people could hear the phone call, he may have decided not to let me know.”

After the lunch break, Ms Wilkinson had reviewed the transcript of Question Time in the Senate on February 15, 2021.

Ms Higgins said that when she suggested Senator Reynolds was “lying” she was referring to the claim that she was unaware of the rape allegation before April 1, 2021.

The Federal Court has previously heard her chief of staff Fiona Brown sought formal advice on how to handle a potential sexual assault complaint three days earlier and was in regular phone contact with Senator Reynolds.

“At the time of the initial meeting with my staff member I was not aware of the details, or the circumstances at the alleged incident in my office,’’ Senator Reynolds told Parliament in February, 2021.“Had I known, I would have conducted the meeting elsewhere.”

Ms Wilkinson told the Federal Court she did not believe Senator Reynolds was unaware.

“That’s a pretty significant one and I believe Senator Reynolds misled Parliament in saying that,” she said.

“Ms Higgins always insisted that Senator Reynolds knew prior to the meeting in her office on April 1 that what happened had a sexual element to it. That has now been proven,” she added.

Ms Wilkinson then referred to the fact Senator Reynolds told the ACT Supreme Court trial that she did not know of a sexual element before April 1.

She later told Channel 7’s Spotlight program that she now remembers that Ms Brown did tell her she was concerned there might be a sexual element to the incident - although she says Ms Higgins never used the word “rape”.

“That has been proven because she has now, via her lawyers when she gave the interview to Mr Lehrmann’s paid Spotlight interviews,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“She has now said that she recants her evidence because Fiona Brown did tell her.”

Mr Richardson then interjected: “Are you finished, Ms Wilkinson?”

“If you’d like me to go on, I’d be happy to, but it proves that Senator Reynolds was lying through her teeth.” she said.

“It’s a pretty important element of Ms Reynolds’ conduct - if she knew there was a sexual element and she knew that happened in her office, that’s a very important fact.”

Brittany Higgins boyfriend in trial judge’s sights

Justice Michael Lee has grilled Ms Wilkinson on whether he regarded “someone like Mr Sharaz” as an appropriate conduit to have dealings with Ms Higgins and the need to ensure vulnerable people are not being “manipulated”.

At the conclusion of Ms Wilkinson’s two-day cross examination, Justice Lee said he wanted to clarify some issues surrounding Mr Sharaz, who is not a witness at the trial.

“You gave some evidence yesterday that you are acutely aware when you’re speaking to survivors of sexual assault, who are speaking about their own sexual assault, they are very difficult conversations,” Justice Lee said.

“I take it that that’s because you perceive through your accumulated experience ... such people are especially vulnerable?

“Would you accept that you have to be especially careful to make sure people in the situation of vulnerability are not being manipulated?”

“Yes,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

Justice Lee then turned to how The Project was communicating with Ms Higgins.

“Now, did you also recall the evidence of (Network 10 producer Angus) Llewellyn that he was using Mr Sharaz as a conduit for communications with Ms Higgins?”

“Yes,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

Justice Lee asked Ms Wilkinson if she effectively left it to Mr Llewllyn to deal with Ms Higgins.

“Speaking of your own view at the time, do you think it was a good idea to use someone like Mr Sharaz as a conduit for communications with Ms Higgins rather than deal with Ms Higgins directly to the extent that he was being used as a conduit,” Justice Lee asked.

“My preference was for Ms. Higgins to be the main contact,” Ms Wilkinson said.

Justice Lee then asked a series of questions about whether she regarded herself as a friend of Mr Sharaz.

“Now as of January 2021, were you someone who was a good friend of David Sharaz?” he asked.

“No, I wouldn’t say that,” she replied.

“Would it be wrong for him to refer to you as a good friend? As of January 2021?” Justice Lee asked.

“Yes,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“Were you on terms of familiarity with him whereby it was consistent with the nature of your relationship for him to adopt the salutation ‘much love’ when he was communicating with you, as of January 2021,” he asked.

Ms Wilkinson said she had not noticed the salutation on the email previously.

“Do you think that’s odd.” Justice Lee said.

“Yeah. I hadn’t had contact with him,” she replied.

Justice Lee then referred to a January 19, 2021 email where he referred to news.com.au journalist Samantha Maiden as “also a good friend of mine” and whether that was a reference to Ms Wilkinson.

Her barrister Sue Chrysanthou objected.

Ms Wilkinson then attempted to add to her answer. “Can I just add a significant fact?”

“No!,” barrister Ms Chrysanthou said.

Ms Wilkinson tried to add that she had only met Mr Sharaz “once”.

Justice Lee cut her off and excused her as a witness.

“I’ve been in the same situations myself, Ms Chrysanthou,” he chuckled.

‘You describe yourself as a serious investigative journalist?’

Ms Wilkinson has been confronted in the Federal Court over her claim she was not “tech savvy” and did not know what metadata is despite previously posting about it on social media.

“I have to be honest with you. I am not tech savvy at all. I didn’t know what metadata was at that point,’’ Ms Wilkinson said on Thursday.

Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson SC then asked if she “remembered giving that evidence”.

“And I just want to have you show a couple of tweets from 2015,” he said.

“I’ve got a copy from my learned friend, a copy for the witness and one of your honour,” he said.

“When you read those tweets now, are you sure about your evidence that in 2021 you didn’t know what metadata was?”

Ms Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou objected to the question but Justice Lee allowed it.

Ms Wilkinson said her knowledge of metadata was limited.

“I think my understanding at that point was that it was talking about phone logs and emails,’’ she said.

“I didn’t know that photographs had metadata.”

“You describe yourself as a serious investigative journalist?,” Mr Richardson asked.

“I described myself as a journalist,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“Well, you were emphatic yesterday that you were not a tabloid journalist and I have to take it to mean that you describe yourself therefore as a serious investigative journalist.”

“I described myself as a journalist Mr Richardson,” Ms Wilkinson replied.

“I want to suggest to you that as a journalist of about 40 years experience in 2021, that it was most improbable that you did not know what metadata was,” Mr Richardson said.

‘Cartoonish villainy’: Lawyer accuses Wilkinson of ‘very poor journalism’

Ms Wilkinson has been accused of publishing Ms Higgns’ claim Michaelia Cash told her to “suck it up” when she knew those exact words were unlikely to have been used.

The exact words were also not put to Senator Cash when The Project approached her office for comment.

Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Mr Richardson suggested on Friday that Senator Cash was portrayed as a figure of “cartoonish villainy” over the question of when she learned of the allegation.

Ms Higgins insists Senator Cash knew from October 2019. Senator Cash insists she knew of a security incident at that time but did not know the late night visit to Parliament involved an alleged rape.

Ms Higgins also told The Project Senator Cash effectively told her to “suck it up”.

“I feel that that is coloured by Ms Higgins very firm belief that when the Canberra Times made inquiries as to Miss Higgins, and a sexual assault occurring, that she felt a level of betrayal,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“When you say coloured, does that mean that you suspect that those words were not actually said?,” Mr Richardson asked.

“I wasn’t in the room at the time,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“It’s cartoonish villainy, isn’t it? The way that it’s portrayed there?,” Mr Richardson said.

“I wasn’t in the room at the time I disagree,” she replied.

Mr Richardson also confronted Ms Wilkinson over The Project editing out a moment where Ms Higgins was asked if the security guards helped her and she replied that one called in the morning to say, “Is everyone okay in there that had been edited out?.”

“That’s very poor journalism, isn’t it to conceal that?,” Mr Richardson said.

“I’m disappointed to see that, Mr. Richardson,” Ms Wilkinson said.

Wilkinson ‘trusted’ Channel Ten on key detail

Ms Wilkinson has told the Federal Court she “trusted” Channel Ten’s legal department when it gave advice about The Project’s decision to identify that Ms Higgins’ alleged rapist worked in the same office.

Mr Lehrmann’s legal team has asked Ms Wilkinson about increased “risks” that he could be identified by others after the story was published.

Identification is a key issue in the trial because even though Mr Lehrmann was not named, he argues peers could work out who the story was about.

Ms Wilkinson was asked about the fact that news.com.au’s original story chose to omit the fact Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann worked in the same office, instead describing them both as Liberal staffers and colleagues.

“I left those decisions to others more qualified than me to decide whether or not it was appropriate to keep those details in the broadcast,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“I knew that the Channel 10 legal department was across this story. And I trusted that it was appropriate for those details to be in there.”

Ms Wilkinson also revealed that she was never told by her producer Angus Llewllyn that he had spoken to the Prime Minister’s office and they had told him that chief of staff Fiona Brown had disputed key claims Ms Higgins had made.

The conversation was “on background” and not for direct attribution.

Ms Higgins has previously said she was aware of the phone call and that the prime minister’s media adviser Andrew Carswell was “angry” but said she did not have a briefing on the content of the call.

She did not regard this as unreasonable because it wasn’t a formal response.

Higgins will not be recalled over covert recording

Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow has revealed he does not propose to recall Ms Higgins over a secret tape of her fiancee David Sharaz discussing her cross examination with her lawyer.

Ms Higgins’ lawyer Leon Zwier was secretly recorded last week at a Sydney bar discussing with her fiancee David Sharaz how she could answer cross examination questions about her secret $2.4 million payout.

Mr Whybrow said the sound quality from the recording was such that he did not propose to tender the material.

“Can I indicate that we won’t have any applications in these proceedings,’’ he said.

“The quality of that 52-minute recording that was provided is not sufficient for us to be able to, in the time available, do anything more with it and make any applications in these proceedings.

“So, I just wanted to let your honour know that we weren’t proposing to ourselves bring any applications in these proceedings to recall witnesses or call other witnesses.”

“So is there a transcript?,” Justice Lee asked.

“There’s only a draft transcript prepared by myself, and it’s obviously not been verified or objectively confirmed,’’ Mr Whybrow said.

“We can make that available to the parties or the registrar or anyone, if required, but I certainly would not like to assert that it’s other than auditory opinion evidence in some respects.”

Justice Lee said that “clarifies the position”.

Mr Zwier has strongly denied that he was coaching his client through her fiance — which is strictly prohibited during cross examination — and there is no suggestion Mr Sharaz did convey Mr Zwier’s comments to Ms Higgins.

In the audio, obtained by Sky News’ Sharri Markson, the pair are heard talking with Ms Higgins’ friend Emma Webster at the Park Hyatt hotel in Sydney about 9.30pm last Monday — the night before her testimony.

An unknown person sitting at a nearby table secretly recorded the conversation and it was later obtained by Sky News.

More Coverage

The discussion caught on tape included how privilege could apply to answers given in court and what Justice Lee thought of Ms Higgins.

“She should say, privilege, your honour, I’m told by my lawyer I don’t have to discuss legal advice, that’s what she should say,” Mr Zwier said at one point.

As the hearing resumed on Friday, Justice Lee also confirmed that the trial is set to conclude early next week with Ms Higgins’ former chief of staff Fiona Brown set to give evidence.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMioQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9uYXRpb25hbC9jb3VydHMtbGF3L2EtY29uc3BpcmFjeS1saXNhLXdpbGtpbnNvbi1ncmlsbGVkLW9uLWZhcmZldGNoZWQtYnJpdHRhbnktaGlnZ2lucy1jbGFpbXMvbmV3cy1zdG9yeS9mNDhiYWVjYmYxOWJkOGJhYTBjNDZkOTdjZTFhYWJmMdIBAA?oc=5

2023-12-15 07:18:45Z
CBMioQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9uYXRpb25hbC9jb3VydHMtbGF3L2EtY29uc3BpcmFjeS1saXNhLXdpbGtpbnNvbi1ncmlsbGVkLW9uLWZhcmZldGNoZWQtYnJpdHRhbnktaGlnZ2lucy1jbGFpbXMvbmV3cy1zdG9yeS9mNDhiYWVjYmYxOWJkOGJhYTBjNDZkOTdjZTFhYWJmMdIBAA

Bagikan Berita Ini