reinforce in the mind of the ordinary reasonable reader that the statements in the article went no further than reasonable grounds to suspect the alleged matters.
75 The respondents make a related point in support of their argument as to the correct imputations conveyed or communicated by the article. They refer to the applicant's response in paras 134 to 138 of the article. They submit that it is a strong and vigorous response from the applicant and it would leave the ordinary reasonable reader with a view that the imputations conveyed were of reasonable grounds to suspect, not statements of guilt.
76 The respondents point to the fact that the article identifies a number of matters favourable to the applicant which the ordinary reasonable reader would take into account in deciding whether the articles were conveying or communicating guilt, or no more than reasonable grounds to suspect. The applicant is referred to as Australia's most decorated Afghanistan veteran (para 8) having received the Victoria Cross (para 3) and a Medal for Gallantry and a Commendation for Distinguished Service (para 9). The applicant is identified as Australian Father of the Year (paras 3 and 11), Chairman of the Australia Day Council (para 12), and as having helped select domestic violence campaigner, Rosie Batty, as an Australian of the Year (para 13). He is identified as the Deputy Chairman of the Prime Minister's Defence Mental Health Committee and Veterans Employment Committee (para 12) and the public face of the campaign against "one punch" violence and the "stay kind" campaign. He was also identified as a business leader, mental health advocate and one of Australia's most respected public figures (para 3).
77 The respondents made it clear that if the Court is to consider an alternative meaning in relation to Imputation 9 (as suggested by the applicant), then the respondents would seek to be heard on such an application.
78 I reject the respondents' submissions.
79 I start with Imputation 9 which it will be recalled is as follows:
The applicant as deputy commander of a 2009 SASR patrol, authorised the execution of an unarmed Afghan by a junior trooper in his patrol.
80 The most directly relevant paragraph in the article in relation to that imputation is para 42 which is as follows:
A member of Roberts-Smith's 2009 patrol allegedly encouraged a more junior trooper to execute a detainee – a suspected militant – and was later overheard boasting about it. Fairfax Media has obtained a photo of the dead man and two witness accounts describing the circumstances in which the Afghan died.
