171․ Amongst the passages from the transcript of the police interviews which were relied upon were the following. At page 74 of the Crown Tender Bundle:
You know, of course the Department of Defence lie, of course it's all a big sham, of course, you know, what did you think it was. I mean I don't accept that and I never did, you know, maybe I am strung too tight, maybe I do have to – to a higher sense of public duty, but it's genuine and I, um, I can't see that it – it means I'm guilty of an offence because, um, I take truth in public life or in the ADF seriously. I think it matters when generals lie. I think it matters when they sacrifice [the] lives of their own troops in order for their own careers to go ahead. I think it matters, um, when Australian officers turn the other way. Um, and I am happy to go to court and have the judge or the jury decide whether I am a criminal, a mad man or a soldier.
172․ At page 78:
… but a bit of a spoiler alert, I'll say now, that the reason why I'm making all these points is because I'm going to admit, um, that I took the documents from the base, I won't say illegally, because I don't, um, admit that it was illegally, because I believe that was in pursuit of, um, a legal duty. But I did take them …
173․ At page 86:
I'm firmly of the opinion that it was my legal obligation to expose criminal activity, I believe I was doing what I was meant to do as a soldier.
174․ At page 87:
… my justification is – it was an obligation to – no law, no matter how, you know, no matter what, the Official Secrets Act or the equivalent says, it can never over-ride the reporting of a serious crime, you know, no government can say, um, to the police, for example, "Oh, if you see a murder, you're not allowed to tell anybody, and if you tell anybody, we're going to put you in jail." … And I'm happy for – you know, that may go to the High Court, the High Court may decide differently, but I am convinced that that must be the case. Ah, that it must be interpreted, I believe that's what the Act actually says, the Protected Disclosure Act, I believe I'm within that, but I believe that even if I'm not within that, there must be some sort of common law – it would be an illegal abusive government that could say, "You're not allowed, as a public servant, you're not allowed to reveal, um, criminal activity within the government, on penalty of jail, um, at any cost." Especially, if you're a legal officer and your job is exactly that to make sure the law is enforced. [He then made reference to the holding of a practising certificate and continued] But it comes with responsibilities, you can't lie, you have to report crime, you have to abide by the law. And I had a legal obligation to report – I believe anyway. That's – of course, that's going to be the question that comes up in court.
175․ At page 102, when discussing whether he should have destroyed the stolen documents, he said:
And, um, ah, you know, I - because afterwards, when I'd heard you came and done the, um - and - and taken the documents with the warrant, I was thinking, well, I actually wished I had destroyed the documents. But even then, something - something inside me was kind of glad that I didn't, because it was - it was always, as I said to you, or I said to Paul, your colleague, I always thought that I was going to be vindicated at some point. I always thought eventually there would be an investigation into my allegations, and eventually people - someone would say, "You've done well here, you’ve stuck to your guns and you've exposed corruption." …
35
