We all know the adage: never write down anything you don’t wish to see on the front page.
That’s something I certainly took to heart during my fleeting (and extremely unpleasant) time as a political staffer 20 years ago. It’s something I still chant to myself as a journalism academic, having watched academic colleagues’ throwaway lines end up gracing news pages.
But should Brittany Higgins’ personal diary entries, provided to police as part of an investigation, end up in the paper? The old tabloid journalist in me has to say: “Hell yes!” There’s clearly huge public interest in the case, and there’s nothing against the law in printing evidence from a court case when a reporter can get access to it.
The piece in The Weekend Australian was clearly throwing shade on Higgins from the outset with its original headline: “Doubts, devastation and a designer coat: the story you haven’t heard, today details Ms Higgins’ diary notes”.
Some of the diary entries are certainly illuminating for those interested in studying power. It’s astounding to read who Higgins was dining with and when, in the context of an ongoing police investigation. It’s also an insight into the celebrity that can come from a supportive media gaze. She was out — a lot — having meals with high-profile journalists, and twice with former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. Part of me wants to say, “Good on you”, and the other is saying, “OMG, really?”
But despite the clear public interest in the story, there’s also a strong and compelling reason for Higgins to be taking a complaint to the Australian Press Council — because, as we say, context is everything.
Higgins has been subjected to an ongoing smear campaign. This is the reason, or the context, that the Press Council should support a ruling against The Australian. Higgins says she was not offered an opportunity to respond to the story, and if that’s the case, a ruling against the paper would follow the precedent set by recent Press Council cases.
But there are other points to discuss in the campaign against Higgins. First, the diary entries, according to Higgins, were never presented in court, and one would presume they weren’t therefore available to journalists. They must have been leaked by either the prosecutor or defence teams. In either case, we must ask: why? Who does the leak service? I’d like a bit of transparency.
Second, anyone who has paid even scant attention to the case knows that at the time of the incident, before the media anointed Higgins as one of the faces of the #MeToo movement, she was almost completely without power. Today there’s not much she can do but tweet, as she did on the weekend:
Stop publishing the private contents of my phone. I took a photo of an old page in my diary on the 7th of July 2021. It is now being referenced in an article in The Australian. This is the third time private images, texts and WhatsApps from my phone have been published by this particular news outlet. I voluntarily provided this material to the police to help them form the brief of evidence and none of it was tabled in court. Therefore, no journalist should have seen the photo of my diary.
Anyone who works, or has worked, within any kind of political system knows that Higgins and every other woman working in Parliament deserves better than being targeted like this.
Sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins has made some important recommendations for safe and respectful work environments to clean up the toxic culture of Parliament House. But if that’s going to work, every person who works in the corridors of power, including the media, needs to play their part in building that supportive culture, and start treating people with respect.
A simple act of giving a right of reply is a good place to start.
Should the Australian Press Council follow this up? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity
“never write down anything you don’t wish to see on the front page”
I guess there’s a new adage in town……………
“Never show the Police something you don’t wish to see on the front page”
I simply cannot believe that it is not illegal that something provided in evidence to Police and never disclosed in court can be released to a “News” (AKA “Propaganda”) outlet as an obvious attempt by an opponent to pursue a media-driven vendetta.
Someone should tell Lehrmann that whilst he has never been found guilty, the case has never been properly tested in court, so he has also never been found innocent.
Theses sort of shenanigans only serve to make him look dodgy.
(There again, as a Liberal staffer, that probably goes without saying……)
Agree re it should be illegal that”…something provided in evidence to Police and never disclosed in court can be released…”.
Currently the appalling Dreyfus A/G is working hard to continue Porter/Scummo’s sealing and/or redacting of evidence presented to court in the Colleary/WitnessK persecution.
Open government, a thing much to be desired, does not register with this lot any more than it did with the worthless predecessor.
Relevance and evidence, please.
errr…wasn’t Brittany Higgins a Liberal staffer?
I so often have to point out the error of your ways Thucydides – in law, innocence is presumed, hence the term, “presumption of innocence”. There is no need, in this case, for Mr Lehrmann to have “been found innocent”, given that presumption. The moment anyone calls Ms Higgins’ veracity into question, the apologists come out of the woodwork. And perhaps you’re overlooking the fact that Ms Higgins, too, was a Liberal staffer. Also dodgy in your opinion? Sometimes your bias gets in the way of your analyses.
Lehmann has the presumption of innocence under the law. No court outcome means he is still presumed innocent.
“an obvious attempt by an opponent to pursue a media-driven vendetta”. Exactly what happened when Wilkins and the media piled on Lehmann isn’t it.
Looking forward to his court cases against the media.
Presumed innocent, but not found so.
And?
And!
Meaningless. Innocent until proven guilty.
Nup. Just NOT proven guilty. Which means the question of innocence remains unanswered.
You miss the point. An accused IS innocent, de facto & de jure.
If the accusation is unproved then it is status quo ante.
End. of. discussion.
According to (technically) legal judgement – yes.
According to what observers may reasonably conclude in the absence of any legal judgement -NO.
I’ll stick with “technically legal judgement..”, ta very mooch.
What ‘observers‘ – aka vigilantes, the meaning of that scary word, the very antithesis of civilised society – conclude is irelevant.
So, no faith in the pub test ?
stupid observers!!!
Q.E.D. here.
The criminal case against Lehrman was called a mistrial because of jury misconduct – nothing to do with either guilt or innocence.
The refusal of the ACT attorney to retry the case was on account of Ms Higgins’ mental state – that ruling is presently under investigation for misconduct by the Attorney. Who knows – the investigation could well find that Lehrman should again stand trial.
Lehmann is likely to regret his current libel case, given that he is unlikely to enter the witness box and be cross examined by an SC looking for blood. ” Why did you leave a drunk naked associate in your boss’s office?”
I suspect that he will win or it will be settled.
I suspect that he will have a radical change of heart when HE is the one being grilled in the witness box…………
…………dumb move – worthy of Trump.
All that’s required is ‘reasonable’ suspicion.
No it’s not. Criminal acts require “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Not if the crimes were committed before and gotten away with.
Not big on continuous, linear thought, are you?
Only insofar as linear thought is not the only thought.
True, but it is the only mode that is functional, in a reality based existence.
Only linear thought “is functional, in a reality based existence”?
You never dream?
Dreaming is, of course, almost wholly non-linear but one could not live a functional (reality-based or not) existence without it.
(I’m not rejecting or downplaying linear-thinking, by the way, just rejecting the kind of absolutism that insists that that is all there is in terms of function, reality and existence.)
Thanks for a good example of what is wrong with those who promulgate such mush as thinking – someone is dreaming, as Darryl Kerrigan would say.
This isn’t a criminal court now is it?
It’s a civil case which has an entirely different presumptions, and entirely different level of proof required. Also, Lehrmann is the one trying to prove the case, not Higgins.
Lehrman’s actions are civil, not criminal, so the legal hurdle is what’s likely, not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Surely, given the case involves ‘the law’ as practiced by ‘the West’, the case cannot go ahead because somebody once got away with something previously?
Or did the rules change again?
Grow up Fartz
Was answering a question with a name-call what they taught kids in the good ol’ days?
Only to Ukraine fanboi’s that make irrelevant statements to the topic at hand.
More name-calling? Even though, according to the words written, the topic was actually about a court case, justice, and the pursuit of law.
Maybe the rules changed again and the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” and the term “legal case” now have no semantic relations to the law and justice whatsoever?
You are the one that introduced a complete furphy into the discussion.
Or do you really believe that an alleged criminal awaiting trial should be allowed to be Judge, jury and executioner for similar acts committed by another alleged criminal?
Again, grow up.
And you spring ‘Ukraine’ out of nowhere into a conversation about justice and the rule of law . . . which would have been quite a surprise for any casual observer not familiar with the notion of the ‘return of the repressed’.
Curious, however, that you’re now – or in this instance anyway – no longer a fan of present-day justice having to wait its turn until all past injustices have been fulfilled and ticked off by an imagined legal body.
NotWoke is clearly the new handle of Lex, our resident CCP stooge.
Er….. no. You introduced the legal furphy by asserting that Lehrman’s cases were criminal, when in fact they are civil.
Why do cons always lie ?
You must have forgotten that Lehrmann’s name didn’t even appear in the press for 2 years.
Only a tiny number of rape cases are decided in the prosecution’s favour, and only a tiny proportion of rape victims take their case to trial. Is it any wonder?
So, unless you think the very large majority of rape victims are liars then you must conclude there is something very very very very wrong with the system.
Comments such as yours don’t help.
“Ethical” and “News Corp” in the same sentence?
Don’t be silly!
He Who Must Not Be Named has a violent allergic reaction to the slightest hint of Ethics………….
……………….sort of Peanuts on steroids.
No surprises, at least. At least one well-known organisation, not unconnected, was uncontestably hacking UK phones for at least a decade earlier this century. It’s what their readers wanted. And still do, apparently. So all good.
At least one well-known organisation, not unconnected, was uncontestably hacking UK phones for at least a decade ….
They hacked the phone of a 10 y-o missing girl raising her family’s hopes that it was her and that she was still alive. She was not. And when he appeared before a later HoC enquiry the media proprietor said it was the most humble day of his life. Such outrageous untruths.
They lost one of their papers because of that.
They should have lost them all + in the UK and here.
My God, but there’s some nuance to this ‘Higgins matter’! So much, in fact, that I’m not sure that I’ve yet seen the whole matter (as it currently exists) described in one article. Anodyne has stated here… “In simple terms, the prosecution case fell apart after Higgins was questioned by the defence and responded with, at best, ‘contradictory’ answers to statements she had previously issued. Had the case been going well for the prosecution, I doubt whether the ‘mental health’ reason offered by the DPP for dropping the charges would have surfaced.” Indeed.
But look… am I the only citizen who found that some juror misconduct was exposed at just the right point in Lehrman’s rape trial? An eagle-eyed sheriff’s officer just happens to chance upon documentation (as part of one of the juror’s belongings) during a “routine tidying”. The officer accidentally bumps one of the juror’s document folders onto the floor, and when picking it up, notices part of the title page of an academic research paper. The subject matter included commentary on the prevalence and reasons of false sexual assault complaints. The documentation was found to constitute private research by the juror, and this is not allowed. The juror in question would face no legal recourse for their actions, because no offence was committed under ACT law. Nonetheless, after 12 days of proceedings and 5 of deliberations, the Chief Justice feels obliged to abort the trial, and she discharges the jury (8 women and 4 men). Both the prosecution and defence agree with this action. At this point, the DPP has carriage of the decision of whether or not to proceed with a retrial and in this instance (and it surely can be said, rather surprisingly… remember that it was Lehrman on trial here, not Higgins) announced that, in the interests of Higgins’ health, there would not be a retrial. The concern of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the health of witness Higgins is but one of the mysteries of this case. Another might be the grounds for the subsequent payment of public money to Higgins.
View from the pub.Just saying.
Higgins was paid compensation for workplace bullying by Cash & Reynolds by Morrison government ie compensation preceded court case
Was it ethical of News Corp to publish Brittany Higgins’ diary?
No. It was not ethical.
It was to be expected however. No wonder the ACT A-G has ordered an enquiry in to the conduct of the case.