Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) (2023, FCA)

by Anthony Besanko

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555
File numbers:	NSD 1485 of 2018 NSD 1486 of 2018 NSD 1487 of 2018
Judgment of:	BESANKO J
Date of judgment:	1 June 2023
Catchwords:	DEFAMATION — defamation proceedings — where the applicant is a very well-known Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) soldier and a Victoria Cross recipient — where 14 defamatory imputations alleged — where there are multiple print and online publications — where imputations are of the most serious kind — imputations involving murder, bullying, assault and domestic violence — where substantial damage caused to both reputation and earning capacity of the applicant — where defences include allegations of very serious criminal conduct — defence of justification or substantial truth s 25 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) — defence of contextual truth s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) — where National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) applied to proceedings — whether the alleged imputations were conveyed by the publications — consideration of s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and common law principles concerning the standard of proof where serious criminal conduct is alleged including Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 — consideration of whether the material before the Court may be so limited that it does not form an appropriate basis upon which to reach a reasonable decision — distinction between absence of proven motive and proven absence of motive — consideration of the effect of the passage of time on the reliability of oral testimony — consideration of the nature of circumstantial evidence — inferences in relation to the failure of a party to call a particular witness: Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 — principles in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL) — consideration of lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt — consideration of whether the respondents have established the substantial or contextual truth of the imputations DEFAMATION — where imputations concern the applicant's involvement in two murders —— mission to Whiskey 108 on 12 April 2009 — factual disputes — were Afghan men found in the tunnel — location of the body of EKIA56 — extensive challenges to the honesty and reliability of witnesses — where respondents have established the substantial truth of the relevant imputations DEFAMATION — incidents involving the applicant during pre-deployment training at Lancelin and Bindoon — where incidents alleged are not directly relevant to any imputation in issue — factual dispute — whether the incidents alleged in the Particulars of Truth took place — whether evidence is inadmissible on the basis that it is tendency evidence — whether applicant’s conduct constituted preparatory conduct DEFAMATION — where the imputations concern the applicant's involvement in the murder of an unarmed Afghan male — mission to Darwan on 11 September 2012— where evidence given by local Afghan witnesses — factual disputes — whether the interpreter was sent back before the southern set of compounds was cleared — whether the unarmed Afghan male was kicked off a cliff by the applicant — whether there was an agreement between the applicant and Person 11 that the unarmed Afghan male be killed after the cliff kick — whether a throwdown was placed on the body — whether the applicant made false report about the engagement — where respondents have established the substantial truth of the relevant imputations DEFAMATION — where the imputations concern the applicant's involvement in a murder — mission to Chinartu on 12 October 2012 — factual disputes— whether the time of engagement recorded in the OPSUM deliberately false — whether Person 12 was present on the mission — where respondents have established the substantial truth of the relevant imputations DEFAMATION — mission to Syahchow 18–20 October 2012 — where witness objects to giving evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination (s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)) — whether or not there are reasonable grounds for the objection — where the allegations in the Particulars of Truth are not made out DEFAMATION — where imputations concern the applicant’s involvement in a murder —mission to Fasil 5 November 2012 — factual dispute — identification evidence — where the allegations in the Particulars of Truth are not made out DEFAMATION — where the imputation concerns the applicant's engagement in a campaign of bullying — factual dispute — whether the bullying acts set out in the Particulars of Truth occurred — consideration of what constitutes a campaign of bullying — where respondents have established the substantial truth of the relevant imputation DEFAMATION — where the imputations allege that the applicant unlawfully assaulted persons under control or containment — factual dispute — whether the applicant assaulted an Afghan male in Deh Rafshan on 15 March 2010 — whether the applicant assaulted an Afghan male in late August to early September 2012 — where respondents have established the substantial truth of the relevant imputations DEFAMATION — blue-on-blue during mission in the Chora Valley on 15 July 2021 — factual dispute — whether the applicant assaulted Person 10 post-mission — whether the applicant made the threat alleged — where the respondents have not made out the substantial truth of the relevant imputation — where the defence of contextual truth is made out DEFAMATION — where imputations concern an act of domestic violence — factual dispute — whether the applicant punched Person 17 — where the respondents have not made out the substantial truth of the relevant imputations — where the defence of contextual truth is made out DEFAMATION — where intimidation of witnesses is alleged — whether the applicant engaged in conduct that intimidated witnesses — whether the applicant colluded with witnesses — whether the applicant concealed relevant evidence and material
Legislation:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.2, 11.2A, 11.5, 268.70, 268.115, 471.12 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) ss 33, 34, 55 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 51, 55, 64, 97, 99, 108, 126K, 128, 140, 164 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 789FD Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AG, 37AH National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) ss 7, 19(3A), 38B Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 25, 26, 35 Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Regulation 2016 (Cth) s 21
Cases cited:	Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2011] QB 497 Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419 Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15; (2014) 219 FCR 322 Attwood v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 353 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing [2019] FCAFC 125; (2019) 271 FCR 632 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; (2012) 247 CLR 345 Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63 at 65; (1774) 98 ER 969 Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL) Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 301 Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152 Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335; (2010) 278 ALR 232 Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 (HL) Cheikho v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 29 Church of Scientology Inc v Woodward [1982] HCA 78; (1983) 154 CLR 25 Citadel Financial Corporation Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) v Action Scaffolding & Rigging Pty Limited (In Liq) [2019] FCAFC 145 Claremont Petroleum NL v Cummings (1992) 110 ALR 239 Commonwealth of Australia v Fernando [2012] FCAFC 18; (2012) 200 FCR 1 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466 Coshott v Prentice [2014] FCAFC 88; (2014) 221 FCR 450 Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 110; (2005) 62 NSWLR 731 De Gruchy v The Queen [2002] HCA 33; (2002) 211 CLR 85 Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193 Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174; (2011) 81 NSWLR 157 Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 74; (2011) 193 FCR 149 Festa v The Queen (2001) HCA 72; (2001) 208 CLR 593 Flack v Chairperson, National Crime Authority (1997) 80 FCR 137; (1997)150 ALR 153 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26; (2014) 310 ALR 1 Gardiner v R [2006] NSWCCA 190; (2006) 162 A Crim R 233 Gatto v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2022] VSCA 66 Gautam v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 85 Gionfriddo & Faure v R (1989) 50 A Crim R 327 Goodrich Aerospace Propriety Limited v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; (2006) 66 NSWLR 186 Handlen v The Queen [2011] HCA 51; (2011) 245 CLR 282 Hayson v The Age Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 361 Ho v Powell [2001] NSWCA 168; (2001) 51 NSWLR 572 Hobbs v Tinling (CT) & Company, Limited [1929] 2 KB 1 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652; (2015) 237 FCR 33 Holt v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 770 Hurley v Clements [2010] 1 Qd R 215; [2009] QCA 167 Hyam v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] 2 WLR 607 Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2008] NSWCA 312 Jensen v Cultural Infusion (Int) Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 358 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434; (2001) 53 NSWLR 541 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Obeid [2005] NSWCA 60; (2005) 64 NSWLR 485 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; (2003) 77 ALJR 1657; (2003) 201 ALR 77 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Jones v Great Western Railway Co (1930) 144 LT 194 Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362 Joseph v Spiller [2012] EWHC 2958 (QB) Khan v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] 2 WLR 692 (PC) Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363 Leung v State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 81 Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79 Mercer v R (1993) 67 A Crim R 91 Mirror Newspapers Limited v Harrison [1982] HCA 50; (1982) 149 CLR 293 Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd (1979) 141 CLR 632 Morley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331; (2010) 247 FLR 140 Moubarak by his tutor Coorey v Holt [2019] NSWCA 102; (2019) 100 NSWLR 218 Musa v Alzreaiawi [2021] NSWCA 12 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170; (1992) 110 ALR 449 Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 246 Nguyen v R [2022] NSWCCA 126 NOM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] VSCA 198; (2012) 38 VR 618 O'Brien v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2017] NSWCA 338; (2017) 97 NSWLR 1 O'Donnell v Reichard [1975] VR 916 Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 WLR 116 Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; (1999) 196 CLR 297 Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191 Pitkin v R [1995] HCA 30; (1995) 130 ALR 35; (1995) 80 A Crim R 302; (1995) 69 ALJR 612 Prager v Times Newspapers Ltd [1988] 1WLR 77 Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69; (2008) 167 FCR 537 Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12; (2020) 268 CLR 123 R v Boscaino [2020] QCA 275 R v Cummins [2004] VSCA 164; (2004) 10 VR 15 R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618 R v Liddy [2002] SASC 19; (2002) 81 SASR 22 R v Manunta [1989] SASC 1628; (1989) 54 SASR 17 R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545 R v Watt (1905) 20 Cox CC 852 Rao v R [2019] NSWCCA 290 Reg v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517 Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (The Popi M) [1985] 1 WLR 948; [1985] 2 All ER 712 RHG Mortgage Ltd v Ianni [2015] NSWCA 56 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2019] FCA 36 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 2 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 1067 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2020] FCA 1285 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 10) [2021] FCA 317; (2021) 151 ACSR 79 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 12) [2021] FCA 465 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 13) [2021] FCA 549 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 23) [2021] FCA 1460; (2021) 157 ACSR 438 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 28) [2022] FCA 115 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 30) [2022] FCA 266 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 36) [2022] FCA 578 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 37) [2022] FCA 580 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 40) [2022] FCA 1614 Rowell v Larter (1986) 6 NSWLR 21 Sands v State of South Australia [2015] SASCFC 36; (2015) 122 SASR 195 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219 Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573 Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157 Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650 Stead v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 15; (2021) 387 ALR 123 Stocker v Stocker [2020] AC 593 Teeluck v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] 1 WLR 2421; [2005] 2 Cr App R 378 (PC) Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25; (2018) 263 CLR 149 Trudgett v R [2008] NSWCCA 62; (2008) 70 NSWLR 696 Victory Projects Pty Ltd v AAA Self Storage Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1758 V'landys v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2021] FCA 500 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 West v Government Insurance Office (NSW) [1981] HCA 38; (1981) 148 CLR 62
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs:	2618
Dates of hearing:	7–11, 15–18, 21–25, 28–29 June 2021, 26–30 July 2021, 2 August 2021, 2–4, 7–11, 14–18, 21–25, 28 February 2022, 1–4, 7–11, 14–18, 21–25, 28–31 March 2022, 1, 4–5, 11, 14, 19, 21–22, 26–29 April 2022, 2–6, 9–13, 16–20, 23–24, 27, 30–31 May 2022, 1–3, 15, 24 June 2022, 12, 18–22, 25–27 July 2022 On various dates during the hearing:
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr B McClintock SC (June/July 2021 & February/March 2022), Mr A Moses SC, Mr M Richardson SC and Mr P Sharp
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mark O'Brien Legal
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr N Owens SC, Ms L Barnett and Mr C Mitchell
Solicitor for the Respondents:	MinterEllison
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Australia:	Ms A Mitchelmore SC (until March 2022), Ms K Stern SC (until April 2022), Ms J Single SC (from May 2022), Mr J Edwards and Ms C Ernst
Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia:	Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

NSD 1485 of 2018
BETWEEN:	BEN ROBERTS-SMITH Applicant
AND:	FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LIMITED (ACN 003 357 720) (and others named in the Schedule) First Respondent
NSD 1486 of 2018
BETWEEN:	BEN ROBERTS-SMITH Applicant
AND:	THE AGE COMPANY PTY LIMITED (ACN 004 262 702) (and others named in the Schedule) First Respondent
NSD 1487 of 2018
BETWEEN:	BEN ROBERTS-SMITH Applicant
AND:	THE FEDERAL CAPITAL PRESS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 394 063) (and others named in the Schedule) First Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 June 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The proceeding be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PART 1 — INTRODUCTION		[1]
PART 2 — THE IMPUTATIONS CONVEYED OR COMMUNICATED BY THE ARTICLES		[28]
The Group 2 Articles		[44]
Imputation 4 – The applicant while a member of the SASR, committed murder by pressuring a newly deployed and inexperienced SASR soldier to execute an elderly, unarmed Afghan in order to "blood the rookie"		[44]
Imputation 5 - The applicant while a member of the SASR, committed murder by machine gunning a man with a prosthetic leg		[50]
Imputation 6 - The applicant having committed murder by machine gunning a man in Afghanistan with a prosthetic leg, is so callous and inhumane that he took the prosthetic leg back to Australia and encouraged his soldiers to use it as a novelty beer drinking vessel		[53]
The Group 3 Articles		[56]
PART 3 — SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH AND CONTEXTUAL TRUTH		[92]
Section 1 — Issues Relating to the Fact Finding Exercise in these Proceedings		[92]
The Onus of Proof		[93]
The Standard of Proof		[95]
The Court is not bound to make findings one way or the other		[117]
The material before the Court may be so limited that it does not form an appropriate basis upon which to reach a reasonable decision		[119]
1. The transcripts of the evidence given to the IGADF Inquiry		[127]
2. The notes of the journalists		[136]
3. Person 12		[140]
4. The absence of forensic evidence		[143]
5. Contact with the Afghan witnesses		[144]
6. Evidence concerning the preparation of contemporaneous documents		[149]
7. The arrangements with Persons 4 and 56		[151]
8. The absence of other witnesses who were present at Darwan		[153]
Conclusion		[155]
Motive		[156]
The Effect of the Passage of Time on the Reliability of Oral Testimony		[162]
Circumstantial Evidence		[167]
Demeanour of Witnesses		[171]
Jones v Dunkel		[174]
Character Evidence		[184]
The Principles in Browne v Dunn		[195]
Lies as Evidence of a Consciousness of Guilt		[196]
Other Matters		[206]
Section 2 — Whiskey 108		[207]
Introduction and Background		[207]
The Applicant's Contention that the Pleaded Allegations are Insufficient in Law and that there has been a Departure in the Evidence from the Pleaded Allegations		[215]
Approach and Witnesses		[223]
References to Person 4 as the "Rookie", "to Blooding the Rookie" and Events on a Prior Mission		[227]
The Mission to W108 on 12 April 2009		[287]
The Location of Person 6's Patrol during the Assault and Clearance of W108 and thereafter		[303]
The Clearance of W108		[356]
Was the Compound Declared Secure Before the Tunnel was Discovered?		[362]
Were Afghan Men Found in the Tunnel?		[434]
The Respondents' Case as to the Execution of EKIA56		[535]
The Location of the Body of EKIA56		[558]
Challenges to the Respondents' Case		[579]
The Respondents' Case as to the Execution of EKIA57		[713]
Moving to W109		[802]
Aspects of the Applicant's Account and those of his Witnesses		[815]
Key Findings and Conclusions		[863]
Section 3 — Incidents involving the Applicant during Pre-Deployment Training in 2012		[884]
Section 4 — Darwan		[933]
Introduction		[933]
Background		[944]
The Background of the Afghan Witnesses		[958]
Events in Darwan on 10 September 2012		[975]
Insertion into Darwan by the Task Force on 11 September 2012		[979]
The Activities of the Afghan Witnesses before and at the time of the Insertion of the Task Force		[982]
The Engagements in and around COI 31		[986]
The Afghan Witnesses encounter Ali Jan		[989]
The Afghan Witnesses encounter Ali Jan		[995]
The Engagement by the Applicant in the area adjacent to the Helmand River at approximately 0805DE		[1010]
The Applicant's Patrol joins Other Patrols and is in the Middle Group of Compounds by 0906DE		[1021]
Clearing the Compounds in the Southern Set of Compounds including Shahzada Fatih's Compound		[1027]
Clearing the Last Compound, that of Mangul Rahmi		[1034]
Tactical Questioning in and around the Last Compound		[1047]
Events after Person 56 and the Interpreter leave the Southernmost Compound		[1052]
The Soldiers leave and the Body in the Cornfield is identified		[1071]
On Return to Tarin Kowt		[1086]
The Respondents' Witnesses		[1089]
Person 4		[1090]
Person 56		[1145]
Mohammed Hanifa		[1159]
Mangul Rahmi		[1177]
Shahzada Fatih		[1188]
Documentary Material		[1201]
The Applicant's Witnesses		[1209]
The applicant		[1209]
Person 11		[1240]
Person 35		[1284]
Person 32		[1292]
Matters advanced by the Applicant		[1364]
Section 5 — Chinartu		[1371]
Introduction		[1371]
Events during the Mission		[1382]
Does the OPSUM falsely record the timing and circumstances of the second EKIA of the Mission to Chinartu?		[1430]
Was Person 12 present on the Mission to Chinartu?		[1448]
Was the Afghan Male executed as described by Person 14?		[1512]
Conclusions		[1536]
Section 6 — Syahchow 18–20 October 2012		[1539]
Section 7 — Fasil 5 November 2012		[1544]
Introduction		[1544]
Person 16's Evidence		[1548]
Other Evidence which the Respondents content is Relevant		[1597]
The Records Produced by the Department of Defence		[1603]
The Applicant's Evidence		[1612]
Person 11		[1634]
The Applicant's Challenges to Person 16's Evidence		[1637]
The Respondents' Submissions		[1669]
Findings and Conclusions		[1681]
Section 8 — The Bullying or Person 1		[1693]
Pre-deployment Training for Rotation 3		[1705]
The Mission to the Chora Pass		[1709]
Events after the Mission at the Base		[1743]
Reports of the Engagement		[1755]
Person 1's Performance after the Mission and his Contact with the Applicant		[1760]
Person 1 is moved to Person 21's Patrol in early July 2006 and Events thereafter		[1775]
Person 1's Performance from April to June 2006		[1805]
The Significance of Persons 23, 33 and 37 not being called as Witnesses by the Applicant		[1817]
The Particulars of Truth Revisited		[1825]
Findings and Conclusions		[1836]
Findings and Conclusions		[1836]
Section 9 — Alleged Unlawful Assaults on PUCs		[1849]
Introduction		[1849]
The Assault of an Afghan Male in Deh Rafshan on 15 March 2010		[1857]
The Assault of an Afghan Male in late August to early September 2012		[1869]
The Applicant's Account		[1875]
Person 7		[1881]
Findings and Conclusions		[1900]
Section 10 — The Blue-on-Blue and the Alleged Threat to Person 10		[1914]
Introduction		[1914]
The Mission		[1918]
The Assault		[1934]
The Debrief		[1941]
Person 10 is disciplined		[1944]
Contemporaneous Reporting		[1945]
Person 10 prepares his Statement		[1952]
Subsequent Events		[1958]
Findings and Conclusions		[1961]
Section 11 — The Alleged Act of Domestic Violence		[1968]
Introduction		[1968]
The Beginning of the Relationship and Events until the end of 2017		[1981]
The Relationship continues and Person 17 tells the Applicant that she is pregnant		[1997]
Events on 6 March 2018		[2010]
Person 17 makes notes on her telephone on 7 March 2018		[2045]
Person 17 goes to Brisbane on 13 March 2018		[2046]
The Alleged Assault on 28 March 2018		[2051]
The Following Day		[2082]
Events on 3 April 2018		[2105]
Events on 5 April 2018		[2115]
Events on 6 April 2018		[2123]
Events on 8 April 2018		[2136]
Events on 20 April 2018		[2140]
The Correspondence with Danielle Kennedy		[2146]
Messages by Applicant on Gmail Account		[2151]
Person 17 contacts Mr McKenzie, makes a complaint to the AFP and withdraws the complaint on 24 August 2012		[2154]
Events from June 2018 to 2020		[2168]
The Submissions		[2175]
Findings and Conclusions		[2207]
Section 12 — Intimidation of Witnesses, Collusion and Contamination of Witnesses, Concealment of Relevant Evidence and Material, Lies and the Alleged Separation of the Applicant Ms Roberts		[2228]
Intimidation of Witnesses		[2240]
Person 6		[2240]
Person 18		[2271]
Person 14		[2347]
Person 40		[2356]
Collusion and Contamination of Witnesses		[2363]
Concealment of Relevant Evidence and Material		[2468]
Introduction and Background		[2468]
The process of discovery begins		[2477]
Where did the applicant keep the USBs?		[2483]
The concealment of the USBs		[2526]
The documents relating to the alleged assault of Person 17		[2542]
Person 5's statement of complaint and other documents		[2551]
Lies and deliberately giving False Evidence		[2554]
The Separation		[2559]
PART 4 — CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH AND CONTEXTUAL TRUTH		[2599]
PART 5 — CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDINGS		[2599]
ANNEXURE A
ANNEXURE B
ANNEXURE C
ANNEXURE D
ANNEXURE E
ANNEXURE F
ANNEXURE G
ANNEXURE H