Fleshing out the evidence of Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown
I’d like to share a little more information regarding the previous statements Linda Reynolds and her Chief of Staff at the time, Fiona Brown made in regard to when they first learned the March 23rd, 2019, incident in her office was more than just a security breach.
But first let’s recap the main details of my previous thread published on August 15th, 2023.
During the R v Lehrmann criminal trial Linda Reynolds Chief of Staff, Fiona Brown confirmed to the ACT Supreme Court she was aware by Thursday the 28th March, 2019, Brittany Higgins had told her in a meeting that “I remember him on top of me.”
Fiona Brown also told the Supreme Court that she informed Senator Reynolds what Brittany Higgins had said before their April 1 meeting with Brittany Higgins in her ministerial suite. We now know thanks to Linda Reynolds own admission on 7Spotlight, Fiona Brown told her this on Friday the 29th March.
However Linda Reynolds had previously denied this under oath during the criminal trial, and also in her affidavit to the AFP, and in her reply to Parliament during Question Time.
It’s this consistent denial for over two years of when Linda Reynolds first knew of a potential sexual assault that could potentially cause her many issues going forward into a new defamation trial against Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz.
Samantha Maiden first reported this conflict with Fiona Brown’s evidence in her article on Feb 18th, 2023.
However there was absolutely no media follow up until my thread was published at 6:26pm on August 15th, 2023.
A few hours after my thread was published on August 15th, 2023 a new article was published by Sam Maiden at 9:22pm in which Linda Reynolds suddenly recants her evidence at the criminal trial and her legal statement was published in the following article.
On December 20th, 2023 Samantha Maiden published another article about the conflicting evidence between Senator Reynolds and Fiona Brown and how their discussions around reporting the matter to the police got quite heated in that first week after the rape occurred in Minister Reynolds office.
Brittany Higgins’ former chief of staff, Fiona Brown, has told court she feared she would be fired over Linda Reynold’s demand that she contact police without Ms Higgins’ consent, but she refused because it would have been “morally and ethically wrong”.
Ms Brown delivered bombshell evidence on Tuesday that members of the Morrison government were “trying to protect themselves” — not Ms Higgins — when they ordered her to report the matter to police. But she also insisted there was “no cover-up”.
She told the Federal Court Senator Reynolds, who was a government minister at the time, wanted “it” reported but asked for it to be “low key”.
“What did you understand that meant?’’ the barrister asked.
“Well, it didn’t make sense to me, because there was — I don’t know how you can go to a police station and make something like that low key,’’ Ms Brown said.
“It made no sense to me. I don’t know what she meant.”
The claytons recant
Since then not one media outlet has checked to verify that Linda Reynolds has in fact ‘legally’ recanted her evidence at the ACT Supreme Court, which as I understand requires signing an affidavit, and having it accepted by the court and attached to the trial records.
And nobody has bothered to report on the fact that Linda Reynolds has not yet taken any actions to correct the Parliamentary Hansard.
You would think it was a pretty big deal, for such a high profile case, given the jury might have not deliberated for so long if Linda Reynolds evidence had been challenged and not entirely accepted by the jury/ In that alternative scenario the banned material may never been brought into court on the last day, and the court may have reached a verdict.
If only that was the case.
I personally see this as one of the greatest failures of this entire saga. If only we could go back in time.
On May 29, 2021 Karen Middleton at the Saturday Paper reported that at Senate Estimates, Senator Katy Gallagher had fired off a series of questions to Rob Stefanic, secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS), who was among a procession of bureaucrats who faced interrogation during senate estimates hearings this week over their handling of the alleged incident and its aftermath.
The article contained this bombshell below but again nobody in the media picked up on it.
“Reynolds, who was Defence Industry minister at the time, had requested the report, which was generated after Higgins and a male staffer entered Reynolds’ office in the early hours of Saturday, March 23, 2019.”
When did Linda Reynolds request the report? What were the contents of it?
In her AFP statement on 17th June 2021, Linda Reynolds said on Wednesday, 27 March 2019, she spent the day in Canberra and then flew to Perth in the evening. She then goes on to tell the AFP the following:
“I recall that the DPS Report referred to the circumstances of two staff members accessing my Ministerial Suite and office after hours and without my authorisation which was a serious matter. However, there was nothing that I can recall reading in the DPS Report or being told about in relation to the DPS Report which stood out to me as suggesting that the circumstances of the unauthorised access of my Ministerial Suite by my two staff members might involve anything more serious, such as a sexual assault.”
Then from the same Saturday Paper article above Labor frontbench Senator Katy Gallagher pressed DPS Secretary Rob Stefanic on why he had chosen to deliver the report to both Reynolds and her chief of staff, Fiona Brown, by hand.
“I didn’t want to email it,” he replied.
“Why is that, Mr Stefanic?” Gallagher asked.
“Given that there may be any number of people who may have access to the email system, I thought it was important that it be provided directly to the minister’s chief of staff and the minister,” Stefanic said.
The contents of the report have not been disclosed officially but it was leaked eventually to several news outlets who published it. Whilst mainly focusing on the security breach, and the observations and actions of the Parliament House Security staff, it did include the fact Brittany was found ‘undressed’ on the Ministers lounge. A fact that neither Linda Reynolds or Fiona thought stood out as concerning enough at the time to mention.
According to various news sources, the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) report given to Linda Reynolds (the then Minister for Defence Industry) did not explicitly allege or conclude that a sexual assault had occurred to Brittany Higgins. Instead, the report reportedly focused on the workplace culture and security issues related to the incident.
Brittany Higgins has publicly criticized the report, stating that it downplayed the severity of the incident and failed to address the alleged assault itself. The handling of the incident and the report’s findings were widely criticized, leading to calls for greater support for victims of sexual assault and improved workplace culture in Parliament House.
The information below is taken directly from Fiona Brown’s Affidavit December 15th 2023.
At around 11:45am on Tuesday 26 March 2019, I received a telephone call from Ms Lauren Barons of DOFA. She told me there had been an “incident” over the weekend and she had something “sensitive” to raise. I got up and shut my door.
She told me to the following effect:
(a) Two staffers had entered through a security checkpoint in the early hours of Saturday morning 23 March 2019 while they were inebriated.
(b) Their names were Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins.
© The staff members had told Security that they were there “for urgent work business”. (My reaction was that this was untrue).
(d) The Ministerial Suite had therefore been “inappropriately accessed”.
(e) Mr Lehrmann had left APH at around 2:30am.
(f) A security guard went to check the Ministerial Suite later to ensure it was secured, as was standard practice in APH.
(g) The security guard found Ms Higgins “naked and passed out”.
(h) Ms Higgins was “offered an ambulance and medical assistance” which she “declined”.
(i) Ms Higgins left the building at approximately 10:00am on the Saturday.
And this extract below is from Fiona Brown’s contemporaneous notes which did not make make any mention of both her and Minister Reynolds receiving the DPS Report on Wednesday the 27th March, 2019. The DPS Report included information about Brittany being found naked on the Ministers Couch.
Fiona Brown’s notes — Wednesday 27 March
I asked Brittany to pop in and see me. I asked how she was, she said fine. I offered to be available if she wanted to talk and was supportive is she wanted time off work, I said whilst I was unaware of exactly what occurred at the office, that if something had happened that she wasn’t happy with or felt wasn’t right or had upset her, she had every right to lodge a complaint or report through the appropriate channels. She said no she didn’t what to do that, I said she had our support if she wanted to, she said she didn’t want to be any trouble, I said no trouble would be caused, she should know she was supported and within her rights to lodge any report or complaint, all I could say was if she felt aggrieved she was supported to follow whatever path she chose, she said thanks. As the day progressed, I checked on her, she said she was fine.
Fiona Brown’s affidavit of December 15th 2023
However the following is also extracted from Fiona Brown’s affidavit of December 15th 2023 which details the meeting with DPS Secretary Mr Rob Stefanic, but once again Fiona Brown doesn’t record that the DPS Report included details about Brittany being found naked. However earlier in her affidavit Fiona Brown did detail the telephone conversation she had with Lauren Barons on Tuesday the 26th March, 2019.
71. On Wednesday 27 March 2019, I briefed Daniel Wong, who worked in the PMO in relation to the GSC about the after-hours access. This was as per the advice from DOFA based on the requirements of the Ministerial Staff Code of Conduct.
72. Mr Rob Stefanic, Secretary of DPS called to arrange a time to meet with the Minister. He told me he had a document to hand to the Minister in person, it was “for her eyes only”. I informed the Minister and she told me she wanted me to attend the meeting also.
73. I attended the meeting with the Secretary and the Minister. The Secretary handed a DPS issued report to the Minister in a white envelope marked in handwriting “Minister Reynolds”. She read through it and the Secretary agreed I could look at it, which I did. The report was headed “Executive Summary of events”. Exhibited and marked “FB-7” is the DPS report dated 27 March 2019 (DPS Report).
74. During the meeting, the Minister and I raised our concerns about the length of time it had taken from the entry to the Ministerial Wing and Minister’s office after hours by two staff after they were observed drunk, allowed them access to a highly sensitive office, left the office unsecured, and took almost three days to advise that they had been there, as it should have been escalated to the Minister immediately.
75. The Minister raised her concerns about her office being cleaned after the incident, and I said “it is lucky it wasn’t a crime scene”. I said those words because in my mind, it hadn’t been a crime scene. We also queried why security guards were allowing staff to enter after hours if their view was that they were drunk. The Secretary said words to the effect that this was “not their job, if a staff member turns up and says they are there for urgent or work purposes, the security guards aren’t going to question that”. We expressed our disagreement with that approach. The Minister was adamant and asked for this be looked into and changes made. The Secretary accepted and understood these concerns and said he would be reviewing these practices.
76. I also asked Mr Stefanic to raise an internal flag in the DPS system to prevent Mr Lehrmann from accessing APH in the future due to security concerns.
77. After the meeting, the Secretary asked me if I had any issues with him disclosing this to the President of the Senate, I said “no, you should do what you believe is right”. He said “thanks”. The DPS supports the Australian Parliament and reports to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament, being the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
During the Federal Court defamation trial Lisa Wilkinson’s Barrister Sue Chystanthou SC grilled Fiona Brown over parts of her affidavit where she said that she passed on the information Lauren Barons had told her to Brittany Higgins, in regards to being found naked and an ambulance being offered to her.
This is an extract from Fiona Brown’s affidavit of December 15th, 2023.
I recall I said, ‘I was told that there was an ambulance requested — that they asked you if you wanted an ambulance or a doctor.’ She did not seem to recollect that. I asked her again “Can I do anything, is everything okay?” She said, “Yes”.
However Sue Chystanthou SC proceeded to challenge Fiona Brown about this evidence during the Lehrmann defamation trial and below is a fascinating exchange recorded in the transcript.
SC: Now…Going back to your affidavit, can you explain why, when you’ve mentioned at paragraph 58 the issue about the ambulance or the doctor, you haven’t put in this affidavit in way that you said you told Miss Higgins that she’d been found naked?
FB: Yes, I’m telling you it’s not there. Paragraphs 56, 57, and 58. I’m telling you it’s not there.
SC: Paragraphs 56, 57, and 58 are where you recount that part of the conversation. And you can keep going if you want to read the whole thing.
FB: Oh, I see. Yes, I understand what you mean.
SC: And the reason it’s not there is because it didn’t happen.
FB: There is a lot of information there.
Sue Chrysanthou goes on to ask Fiona Brown more details about the nature of the incident.
SC: Just take it one step at a time. Wasn’t it, wasn’t the shocking thing, not just that they had entered the building, but that Miss Higgins had been found naked and passed out and it was considered that she should be offered an ambulance and medical assistance?
FB: Nods, yes
SC: And weren’t you concerned that a young woman who you were told was intoxicated had been found in that state?
FB: Nods, yes
SC: And weren’t you concerned about what could have happened? And you were concerned, weren’t you or you suspected that they may have had sexual intercourse?
FB: It was not unreasonable to have that thought.
SC: And you had that thought?
FB: Nods, yes
SC: Now, you said a moment ago, well, I’ll just take it one step at a time. Is it fair to say you’d never dealt with anything like that before? And Miss Barron’s told you she had never dealt with anything like that before?
FB: Nods, yes
SC: So it was quite a sensitive situation, having regard to what you’d been told.
FB: Nods, yes
SC: Is it fair to say that you didn’t have the skills or training to deal with that situation at that time?
FB: Which is why I went to the Department of Finance and the Department of Finance came to tell me, but that’s why we consulted with the Department of Finance and even if Miss Barron’s had not had that experience or qualification, there were many people in the department she could reach out to as our HR people.
Fiona Brown said in her Federal Court affidavit on Dec 23, 2023, that it was only after she spoke with Linda Reynolds on April 5th that she knew about the formal sexual assault allegation at the meeting with AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Close and Linda Reynolds on April 4th.
However, AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Close records in her notes that both Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds attended the meeting on April 4th where she told them both Brittany Higgins had made a formal allegation of sexual assault. The AFP also confirm this in their own media statement. Fiona Brown’s account of these events appears to be at odds with the notes AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Close made at the time and with Linda Reynolds statements.
Spot the difference! Fiona Brown evidence at Lehrmann v Ten defamation trial.
ACT Inquiry exhibits.
1–15-Pitney.pdf
On Monday 1 April 2019 Ms Brown referred the incident to the internal Australian Federal Police, and an appointment was made for the complainant to talk to them on the same day.
26–50-Drumgold_Redacted.pdf
On Friday 29 March 2019 Fiona Brown reported the incident to the internal Australian Federal Police, and an appointment was made for the complainant to talk to them on Monday 1 April 2019.
This timeline is in stark contrast to the evidence Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds have both previously given, which was that they first referred the matter to the AFP on Monday 1st April 2019.
Lehrmann v Ten Defamation Trial Evidence
Fiona Brown’s Evidence
SC: So I want to suggest to you that given you were noting your call with Nicky it would have been very easy for you to also record in these notes
your telephone call with Senator Reynolds whether it had been that night or the following morning
FB: I just don’t recall I’m sorry
SC: Is it the case that you were very careful about conversations with Senator Reynolds on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week?
FB: No I had lots of conversations about lots of things with Senator Reynolds it wasn’t intentional
SC: But you had very specific conversations you’ve already told us on Tuesday, Wednesday and either Thursday night or Friday morning with Senator Reynolds about this issue about Miss Higgins. Shouldn’t they have been recorded by you in this document?
FB: In hindsight yes
It would be fascinating to read the statement Fiona Brown made to the AFP on March 22nd, 2021, but it was never tendered as evidence so it can’t be provided to anyone without breaching Harman undertakings. Unless it gets tendered in the Reynolds defamation trial, we will never know what Fiona Brown told the AFP back in March 2021.
Having a chance to review this AFP statement together with the evidence and testimony of former AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Cross, could mean the upcoming defamation trail (that Linda Reynolds seems determined to proceed with against Brittany Higgins) might just open up a proverbial can of worms.
Like so many times before in this 5 year long saga, you still can’t rule anything out.
