“We’ve been informed by the … [newspapers’] lawyers that no proof was relied upon, but they’ve refused to deliver us with copies of the transcript of the submissions that were being made,” Mr Cheshire said.
“Although the respondents’ lawyers have refused to offer us with a copy of the applicable section of the transcript, we take note that the respondents have published at least extracts of the oral submissions on their web site to the public at big.
“We have reviewed those people publications, and if what has been noted is a total and exact representation of what was stated to justify the issuing of the subpoenas, then I need to report that it incorporated info [and] inferences that have been inaccurate and incorrect.”
On the other hand, Mr Cheshire claimed that Mr Boulten and Mr Hodges did not would like to hold off the demo and ended up information to hand in excess of documents “within the ambit of the subpoena”.
“I must make it apparent, on the other hand, that by doing so they are not intending to waive any authorized rights that they could have, and they reserve of all their legal rights, such as the ideal to argue, if it turns into needed, that the subpoenas need to never ever have been issued to them,” Mr Cheshire mentioned.
He made five packets of substance to the court docket, which includes a group of documents that he reported could be protected by legal skilled privilege. That privilege was claimed by Mr Boulten and Mr Hodges on behalf of Individuals 56 and 66, he stated, but it was now up to all those men to assert that privilege, or not, as they observed in shape.
Mr Moses mentioned there was “nothing to produce” in relation to the discover to make served on Mr Roberts-Smith.
Legal professionals for the likely witnesses will now overview the paperwork to ascertain no matter whether any of the substance created by Mr Boulten and Mr Hodges are lawfully privileged and can’t be utilized in courtroom.
Mr Roberts-Smith is suing 3 media shops for defamation about a sequence of information reviews in 2018 he states portray him as a war criminal.
The Age and the Herald, owned by Nine, and The Canberra Occasions, now under separate possession, are in search of to rely on a defence of truth. They allege Mr Roberts-Smith committed or was concerned in 6 murders of Afghans underneath the manage of Australian troops, when they simply cannot be killed less than the guidelines of engagement.
Mr Roberts-Smith maintains any killings were being carried out lawfully in the heat of fight.
Afterwards on Thursday, a serving SAS soldier dubbed Particular person 14 returned to the witness box.
He has given harming proof that he witnessed a few Australian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2009 around “a black object which was … related to a human” in advance of just one of the troopers fired a “distinctive” device gun, identified as the F89 Para Minimi.
He explained he later on discovered the object was an Afghan gentleman with a prosthetic leg, who had been shot dead.
Person 14 instructed the court he could not recognize any of the a few troopers, but he “saw who had the Minimi” right after the mission was finished, and it was “Ben Roberts-Smith”.
Underneath cross-examination by Mr Moses, Man or woman 14 has agreed he was not suggesting this was the similar weapon used in the alleged incident.
On Thursday, Mr Moses place it to him that he at first informed investigative journalist Chris Masters, who co-wrote the articles or blog posts at the centre of the situation, that a different soldier, Particular person 4, experienced shot the Afghan guy.
“Incorrect,” Particular person 14 mentioned.
“You are a liar, are not you?” Mr Moses stated.
“I’m not,” Person 14 said.
Mr Moses referred to handwritten notes designed by Masters and put it to Human being 14 that he told Masters at a meeting in February 2018 that “RS [Roberts-Smith] had an M14” rifle, whilst Human being 4 had a Minimi and “P4 experienced shot an outdated male with a prosthetic leg”.
Human being 14 reported Minimis ended up generally carried by a junior soldier, and he at first considered Human being 4 shot the Afghan guy.
“That was based off me assuming that the Minimi carrier was Human being 4,” he reported. “That was my preliminary assumption on the floor … but I afterwards came to master who was carrying the Minimi.”
Mr Moses set it to him that “you by no means reported to Mr Masters on the 27th of February 2018 that you recognized that it was Mr Roberts-Smith who’d shot the person with the prosthetic leg”.
“What I acknowledge is that my original assumption was Particular person 4 experienced the Minimi as the junior man or woman in the patrol, and that was my initial assumption on what I noticed,” Individual 14 mentioned.