Reynolds Drops a Bombshell as Defamation Case Deepens: Leak to Journalist Revealed in WA Court

Former Liberal minister Linda Reynolds has defended her decision to leak confidential documents to a senior journalist as her long-running defamation dispute with former staffer Brittany Higgins escalated dramatically in the Western Australian supreme court today. The revelation—acknowledged by Reynolds under cross-examination—marks one of the most significant disclosures in the case to date and has raised fresh questions about political conduct, confidentiality, and the handling of highly sensitive material within government ranks.

The court heard that Reynolds provided documents related to Higgins’ personal injury claim—documents explicitly marked “confidential”—to The Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen. Reynolds said she made the decision under pressure and out of frustration, describing herself at the time as “incredibly angry”. The leak, she insisted, was motivated by a belief that she had been unfairly restricted from commenting publicly on the rapidly unfolding political scandal.

A Decision Made in Anger

Under questioning, Reynolds told the court she viewed Albrechtsen as a journalist who was “fair and balanced”, and therefore a suitable recipient for the sensitive documents. When asked why the information was not offered to Samantha Maiden, the news.com.au journalist who first broke the story of Higgins’ alleged rape in Parliament House, Reynolds said Maiden had been “monstering” her staff and was therefore not an option.

“I felt I needed to correct the record,” Reynolds said, adding that she believed she was being “stitched up” by attorney general Mark Dreyfus. She maintained that she saw Albrechtsen as someone who would “tell the story properly”.

Despite her concession that she used her personal email account rather than her official ministerial email, Reynolds denied that this was an attempt to evade scrutiny. “Not at all,” she said. “I acted in haste and frustration, but I did not act out of a desire to conceal.”

Leak Sparks Political and Public Backlash

The admission has further intensified the political storm surrounding the case, which has already become one of the most sensitive and high-profile legal battles in recent Australian political history.

Legal observers note that the disclosure raises complex ethical issues. Government ministers are bound by strict rules around the handling of confidential documents, and the revelation that such material was shared with a journalist—especially one known for commentary rather than straight reporting—has triggered immediate criticism from transparency advocates and legal analysts.

The attorney general’s office has not commented on Reynolds’ testimony, though Dreyfus has previously rejected claims that he acted improperly during the handling of matters related to Higgins’ compensation.

Trans-Tasman Tensions Flare

The Reynolds case dominated political news in Australia today, but it unfolded against a backdrop of rising diplomatic friction. Across the Tasman, New Zealand’s prime minister ignited what some commentators are calling a “trans-Tasman language row” after remarks that appeared to criticise Australian political rhetoric. While unrelated to the Higgins saga, the diplomatic flare-up contributed to a volatile political environment, one in which questions of tone, accountability, and cross-border relationships came under renewed scrutiny.

Passing of a Cult Figure

Adding to the day’s mix of headlines, Australians were also marking the death of the man affectionately known as the “succulent Chinese meal” legend—Jack Karlson, whose viral arrest video became a beloved piece of internet folklore. Karlson’s death prompted a flood of online tributes celebrating his eccentric humour and unlikely status as a meme icon.

A Case That Continues to Evolve

As Reynolds’ defamation proceedings continue, today’s bombshell has reshaped the trajectory of the case. Her admission that she willingly shared confidential material—paired with her insistence that she did so in the interest of fairness—adds new complexity to a dispute already marked by political tensions, personal grievance, and competing claims of reputational damage.

For her part, Higgins, who has alleged she was raped in Reynolds’ ministerial office in 2019, maintains that statements and actions taken by Reynolds in the years since have harmed her reputation. The court is expected to continue hearing evidence this week, with further scrutiny likely to fall on the circumstances surrounding the leak and the broader political context in which it occurred.

What remains clear is that the case continues to reverberate far beyond the courtroom, touching on issues of ministerial accountability, the intersections of media and politics, and the boundaries between personal grievance and public responsibility. As the proceedings unfold, Australians are witnessing not only a legal battle but an ongoing reckoning with the culture and conduct of their political institutions.