The respondents’ argument that they do not know what Person 81 is likely to say on a number of key topics is correct. In fact, it is clear the applicant does not know either. The latter point is reinforced by the text message sent by Person 81 to Ms Allen. This application is unusual in that it is not entirely clear how Person 81’s evidence will advance the applicant’s case. The lack of notice of the evidence Person 81 will give leads to the potential prejudice to the respondents which I have already identified.
A senior SAS soldier who will likely be the final witness to testify in the protracted defamation trial launched by Ben Roberts-Smith has backed the war veteran on a key piece of evidence.
But the captain at the time denies ever seeing fighting-aged males coming out of the tunnel, nor did he see any prisoners taken captive.
And nobody in his troop told him unlawful activity had occurred that day, he said.
That's why in the legal profession there is a saying that only lawyers win defamation trials.The case has now ended.
Legal costs are estimated to be $25 million.
I suspect that any prosecutor wants a corroborative witness before proceeding.I found this paragraph rather telling
I wonder how that can be - The bodycam footage ( according to some ) apparently shows a cold blooded killing / murder.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think the helicopter bods directed the soldier onto the suspect as he was running from the scene at the time rather than he was carrying gun/icom/ whatever( It has probably been missed by those that only watched the short clip - That the soldier was actually directed onto the target by a helicopter )
Correct me if I am wrong but I think the helicopter bods directed the soldier onto the suspect as he was running from the scene at the time rather than he was carrying gun/icom/ whatever
Which way do you think it will go in your opinion
have the media established a defence of truth?
What will be the verdict in the court of Arrse?
It was a battle of his own choosing but the war hero has come out of it badly wounded, with a verdict still months away.
You don’t crawl into a Taliban tunnel armed only with a pistol and forget or mistake finding two Afghan males hiding in it – men allegedly executed minutes later. You’ve either lied about it or there were no men in the tunnel.
a hard task-master who by his own admission once punched a subordinate in the face for wildly shooting in the direction of a woman and child.
A very one sided account in support of the media. BRS had no option but to take it to court. Luckily Kerry Stokes had the moral courage and conviction to support him. What was BRS went to do? just let Masters and McKenzie get on with it? It wouldn't have stoped their would it? Other journos would be digging around for stories.What follows might be of interest to the few people still following this thread. I have been watching the court case and trying to be objective, but the one thing which strikes me now is that win, lose or draw, half the witnesses must have been lying, ie committing perjury, or even colluding which could be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
In today's Weekend Australian (a fairly coherent, middle of the road paper), in an article titled War hero Ben Roberts-Smith has been wounded whatever the result, journalist Stephen Rice sums up. I won't copy in the whole article, just relevant paragraphs. I'll add the link but it is paywalled, but some of you may be smart enough to get around that.
After 99 days of hearings and $30m tipped into the pockets of lawyers, the de facto war crimes trial of Ben Roberts-Smith has come to a close.It was a battle of his own choosing but the war hero has come out of it badly wounded, with a verdict still months away.Defamation cases are unruly beasts that have a habit of heading off in directions no one predicted. Ask Christian Porter and Craig McLachlan.This one charged out of the gate head-first into a series of killings in Afghanistan, trampling over the testimony of a dozen SAS witnesses, then swerved back home to carve a path of destruction through the Victoria Cross recipients’ marriage and his extramarital affair, before pulling up in his own backyard to dig up a pink children’s lunch box and its hoard of secrets.And that was all before the 43-year-old former SAS soldier called his own witnesses.The trial has at least gone the distance, unlike the Porter case, which the former attorney-general gave up before it ever properly got going, and the McLachlan case, which the actor abandoned just as the defence was about to bring on its 11 witnesses.Both decided to cut their losses and walk away with hefty legal bills, but neither had the deep pockets and even deeper loyalty of Roberts-Smith’s employer and patron, billionaire media mogul Kerry Stokes.Roberts-Smith may be wondering if that was a blessing or a curse. Whatever judge Anthony Besanko finds when he hands down his judgment later this year, a parade of SAS soldiers has given eyewitness accounts of the VC recipients’ alleged involvement in murder.Roberts-Smith has denied all the claims, and plenty of other soldiers have given evidence backing him. But the headlines have been merciless. Vindication, if it arrives, will have come at a heavy price.And many witnesses in this case have lied. The conflicting accounts of what happened in the two central SAS missions at issue in the trial are irreconcilable.You don’t forget or mistake seeing one of your comrades fire a machine gun into the back of a detained, unarmed man. You either saw it or you made it up.You don’t crawl into a Taliban tunnel armed only with a pistol and forget or mistake finding two Afghan males hiding in it – men allegedly executed minutes later. You’ve either lied about it or there were no men in the tunnel.Yet each of the SAS soldiers who told these stories – one on behalf of the newspapers, the other for Ben Roberts-Smith – were compelling witnesses, plainly spoken men who seemed to give earnest, detailed accounts. The judge will need to work through dozens of such conundrums.The last weeks of the trial have been overshadowed by allegations of collusion between a small inner circle of Roberts-Smith’s witnesses, a potentially fatal blow for his case.Equally, Roberts-Smith's lawyers have spent dozens of hours probing the newspapers’ witnesses for acknowledgment they were motivated by jealousy for Roberts-Smith’s VC award, or simply by outright dislike of the soldier, a hard task-master who by his own admission once punched a subordinate in the face for wildly shooting in the direction of a woman and child. (To be fair, he is also alleged to have threatened to smash in the face of a superior officer, although Roberts-Smith has denied making the threat.)Sources close to Kerry Stokes say he remains convinced of Roberts-Smith’s innocence and is determined to fight the case to the end.Equally, Nine cannot just walk away from two of its star journalists, Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters.An appeal is almost inevitable, and is guaranteed to prolong the pain for all.Put your money on the judge getting it right first time around.
Yes, person 27 who was BRS's PC in the action in which he was awarded the VC, who was himself awarded the Star of Gallantry. The award just below the VC (you yourself published his profile in post #681) and person 39.There were two former SBS Royal Marines who subsequently joined SASR?
What do you think how this will affect future NATO/Western military intervention in the future, please?Roberts-Smith entitled to presumption of innocence, court told
After a six week break both sides are completing their final summing up in the case.
Its a personal defamation trial in a civil court. Australia aren't in Nato and I doubt if it will affect Western intervention in any way in the future. Instituitional memories are very short and we are good at making the same mistakes again and again.What do you think how this will affect future NATO/Western military intervention in the future, please?
But maybe being more 'careful' and getting a grip on them for a start.A less aggressive pace and Lawers in base camps, maybe?Its a personal defamation trial in a civil court. Australia aren't in Nato and I doubt if it will affect Western intervention in any way in the future. Instituitional memories are very short and we are good at making the same mistakes again and again.