In the midst of the courtroom drama surrounding former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation retrial, a startling revelation emerged that added another layer of complexity to an already heated legal battle. The trial had taken a surprising turn as it was disclosed that a witness had threatened legal action against Nine newspapers due to alleged misconduct by reporter Nick McKenzie.
Roberts-Smith’s attempt to sue Nine Newspapers in 2023 over accusations of war crimes was unsuccessful, with the Federal Court ruling in favor of the allegations. Now, he is asserting a miscarriage of justice in his defamation case against Fairfax Media following the emergence of recordings suggesting unethical behavior by McKenzie before the trial.
As tensions escalated inside the Federal Court in Sydney, both McKenzie and Roberts-Smith faced intense scrutiny and questioning. Arthur Moses SC, representing Roberts-Smith, meticulously cross-examined McKenzie about his interactions with key individuals involved in the case. One such individual was Danielle Scott, a close associate of Roberts-Smith’s former wife Emma. McKenzie admitted to feeling “pretty paranoid” initially and explained his rationale for recording conversations with Scott.
“I was pretty paranoid … initially … I did not know her, but she was assisting me in litigation so I recorded her and gave that to my lawyer.”
The courtroom atmosphere grew more charged as bombshell recordings from last month were played during cross-examination. In these recordings, McKenzie’s voice betrayed tension as he discussed receiving information from individuals closely linked to Roberts-Smith. The revelations left him grappling with ethical dilemmas and acknowledging potential breaches of conduct.
“They’ve actively like briefing us on his legal strategy … I’ve just breached my f**king ethics in doing that.”
Despite rigorous questioning and mounting pressure, McKenzie maintained his stance on accessing privileged information and defended his actions as part of journalistic inquiry into matters of public interest. His testimony shed light on the intricate web of relationships and information exchanges at play behind closed doors.
Following hours spent under scrutiny on the stand, McKenzie finally exited the courtroom – yet the echoes of his testimony lingered. His assertion that journalists operate within legal boundaries but may occasionally navigate ethically gray areas underscored the complexities inherent in investigative reporting.
“Journalists ‘always try to act within law,’ however there are ‘occasions’ where they might do things that ‘conflict with law.'”
Roberts-Smith’s quest for justice continues as he seeks to reopen his appeal based on what he deems as crucial new evidence – namely, the contentious recordings involving McKenzie. With closing arguments presented by both sides, all eyes are now on the impending decision that will shape the trajectory of this high-profile legal battle.
Leave feedback about this