Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/248

 quickly become a scandal for the government were she to proceed down the path of a full police investigation, would have been a liability to the Liberal Party and it would have been very difficult for them to have her within their ranks.

Ms Wilkinson, I want to suggest to you that the statement that Ms Higgins had been encouraged and supported to make a police complaint did not corroborate what she had told you. Do you agree or disagree?---Would you mind asking that question again, please.

That the statement that Ms Higgins, by – in this statement from the government, that Ms Higgins had been encouraged and supported to make a police complaint, what I’m suggesting to you is that did not corroborate what she had been saying?---What she had been saying where? I had many conversations with Ms Higgins.

In any of her conversations. Do you agree or disagree? We went through them yesterday?---Sorry, I'm still struggling with your question, Mr Richardson.

When you received this document - - -?---Yes.

- - - and you read those two paragraphs - - -?---Yes.

- - - what I'm suggesting to you is that you knew they were not consistent with what Ms Higgins had been telling you?---Ms Higgins told me that Ms Reynolds was kind to her and that if she was to go ahead with the police investigation, that was okay.

I also want to suggest to you that when you read the statement by the government suggesting that Ms Higgins had told there would be no impact on her career, that was also inconsistent with the allegation she had made to you?---Well, I believe and I still believe that if a full police investigation had got underway, given that her contract was going to finish in six or so weeks anyway, I believe beyond that it would have been very difficult for the Liberal Party – but we're dealing in unknowns here. I believe it would have been very difficult of the Liberal Party to continue to employ her when she would be seen as a liability. She would have been a liability.

'''I just asked you, Ms Wilkinson, whether you perceived any inconsistency between the government saying on the one hand no impact on her career, that that's what she was told, and the allegation she had been making to you. I suggest there was an inconsistency. Do you agree or disagree?---I wish I could comprehend your question better, Mr Richardson. I'm really struggling here.'''

878 The response of Mr Llewellyn was similarly interesting. He gave the following evidence (T1670.17–42):

You actually thought the information that Mr Carswell had provided you with was good for your program, did you?---It gave us – sorry. It gave us confirmation that an investigation had happened; it was very important.

Was it because that he had admitted that the Reynolds' office was the wrong place for the meeting with Higgins to take place? Is that why you thought it was good for your program?---There was lots of good – it – confirmation; there was a lot of interesting stuff in it.

Well, I'm just asking you why you thought it was good for the story?---It confirmed that there had been an investigation. It confirmed that meetings had happened. It confirmed where meetings had happened.

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