Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav
Check out The 7:30 Report for today.
The journalist said a couple of times that BRS was a murderer, a war criminal and a liar.
This is substantially true - the judge said so.
|
Evidence was adduced from Australian Special Forces members of BRS kicking a civilian man off a cliff, and then being involved in shooting poor civilian lying wounded from the fall.
The Australian Special Forces members evidence on this was corroborated by Afgan civilians.
This evidence was given, tested under cross examination, and found credible by the court.
Nothing in this-no black magic.
Problem is for a criminal case, it will apply the noted beyond reasonable doubt and not the civil on balance of probabilities standard as applied in this defamation action. Briginshaw not applicable to this case as it was a civil defamation matter- was not some "offence" or regulation breach that was not criminal.
Also in a criminal case, likely to be a Jury Trial, and that may make it harder to secure a conviction against a "war hero".
Any criminal case- all evidence needs to be adduced again fresh, the evidence given in the defamation case could be used during cross examination on credibility issues.
The end result in this defamation case was expected my end.
What does surprise me is when I heard of the nature of the SAS Australian members evidence against BRS before the defamation hearing, I said to my wife what the hell is BRS doing suing the publications for defamation, he is exposing himself to later criminal war crime prosecutions. He is insane.
I suppose BRS has the Prince Andrew syndrome, arrogant, entitled and self deluded and (even though he is intelligent according to my daughter who observed his evidence in person in court) he most certainly is unwise.