- d. 23 Sep 13 (Shooting death of PRC detainee)
- e. 26 Sep 13 (CIVCAS)
(Citations omitted)
61․ The reference to "ref A" was to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (PID Act). The reference to "ref B" was to a Defence Instruction entitled "Management and Reporting of Notifiable Incidents".
62․ Although this summary suggested that the submission was a narrowly focused legal contention, the terms of the balance of the document suggest that it reflected broader concerns.
63․ In addition to the summary, the submission contained eight parts (A to H) and a conclusion. They were headed as follows:
- (a) A. The gradual growth of bias against SOTG by HQJOC Legal;
- (b) B. The commencement of illegal/vexatious investigations;
- (c) C. The incident of 28 Feb 13;
- (d) D. The CIVCAS of 26 Sep 13;
- (e) E. The incident of 28 Apr 13;
- (f) F. The deaths of 'detainees' of 3 Oct 10 and 23 Sep 13;
- (g) G. The investigation into the incident of 03 Oct 10;
- (h) H. The investigation of the incident of 23 Sep 13; and
- (i) Conclusion.
64․ Section A dealt with the ROEAMP. This was characterised as taking the ADF backwards and reinforcing unrealistic expectations of ADF soldiers during the course of a firefight. The justification for the ROEAMP was characterised as "spurious". The criticism was that the ADF was placing unnecessary risk on the lives of their own soldiers in order to avoid any public embarrassment. The ROEAMP was promulgated on 29 April 2013 and the submission indicated that there could have been better training on the existing ROE.
65․ Section B asserted that, in early 2013, a change occurred, so that where civilians were killed, the deaths were automatically investigated as possible murders even if there was no suspicion that a crime had been committed.
66․ Section C related to an incident on 28 February 2013, when a number of civilians were killed by mistake. There were two groups which matched the description of "two boys
15
