Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/209



You can always chat to me over the phone if you need more, and I can put Britt on.

Thanks again,

David Sharaz

772 The Timeline was a curious document, as was the evidence given as to its creation.

773 Ms Higgins was emphatic in her evidence-in-chief it was prepared by her, the "intended audience" was initially her and the police, and it was an iterative document that evolved as she "thought of things". She also said: "I also provided it to, I believe, Samantha Maiden from news.com, and I provided it to, I believe, Angus Llewellyn from The Project" (T688.21–45). She believed the "final draft", which was provided to the Project team (which became Ex R11 and part of Ex 42) was "a final draft kind of one, but I'm not exactly sure" (T689.2–3).

774 In cross-examination (T819.27–41), Ms Higgins gave the following evidence:

MR WHYBROW: you just agreed with me that Mr Sharaz did in fact send this to Ms Wilkinson on your behalf?---He absolutely sent it on my behalf, but I wasn’t over his shoulder as he typed the message.

No, but you knew that he had sent the timeline that you had prepared?---Yes, I asked him to.

***

You see Mr Sharaz indicates in the second-last line:

"In addition to this, I’ve gone and looked up the ACT Policing crime stats for 2019, and there was one reported sexual assault during the time Britt’s incident occurred"

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369