Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/249

 Didn't it also suggest that a lot of what Ms Higgins was saying was wrong?---No, it confirmed a lot of what Ms Higgins right – was right; an enormous amount.

Well, you recall – and I just took you to it – that The Project opens with the words:

"A young woman forced to choose between her career and the pursuit of justice."

'''You remember that? And Mr Carswell had told you that Ms Higgins was told the incident wouldn’t impact her job. Completely different, isn't it?---Yes, that's what Mr Carswell said.'''

Well, I'm asking you, as I said, why you thought what he said was good for the story?---Because it confirmed a lot of what Ms Higgins had said.

879 He also gave the revealing evidence that he thought the response contained an "element of victim-blaming" or a "suggestion that Ms Higgins had been at fault in some way", that is Ms Higgins must be believed and any information to the contrary is "victim blaming" (T1672.25–32).

880 By 2:17pm, Mr Llewellyn had also received, reviewed and forwarded to the Project team a further email reproducing two contemporaneous documents from Mr Carswell "[f]or background" which were said by Mr Carswell to confirm the support offered to Ms Higgins following the involvement of the M&PS division of the Department of Finance and Administration: being the lengthy and detailed summary of actions taken in relation to Ms Higgins up to and including six days after the incident sent to Ms Brown and the message sent by Ms Higgins to Ms Brown on 7 June 2019 noting Ms Higgins could not overstate how much she had valued Ms Brown's support and advice and praising her for being "absolutely incredible" (Ex R810).

881 On any view, those contemporaneous communications were important and gave substance to and corroborated the account given in the response earlier provided by Mr Carswell, being a response Mr Llewellyn had accepted was "completely different" to that recounted to the Project team by Ms Higgins about her job being at risk if she made a complaint to the AFP (T1670.37–39).

882 Notably, when Mr Meakin was taken to this material, which he did not recall (T1962.29) he gave the following evidence (T1962.31–42):

I suggest it's a pretty significant email, isn't it, because it's contemporaneous and it records on 29 March what someone in an HR capacity was confirming had happened to Ms Brown?---Yes.

If you had read the email, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that the first

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