month Fairfax Media investigation. In that context, the clear implication is that the killing of the man with the prosthetic leg was an unlawful killing, not an accidental killing or a killing that occurred within the rules of engagement.
52 In my opinion, Imputation 5 was conveyed or communicated by the Group 2 articles.
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 applicant accepts that the article does not expressly say that he returned the prosthetic leg to Australia. Nevertheless, he is identified as the man responsible for the killing of the man with the prosthetic leg and the act of removing the prosthetic leg is not attributed to anyone else. The applicant submits that he is, in effect, the only candidate in terms of the act of souveniring the prosthetic leg.
54 The respondents submit that this imputation is not conveyed or communicated by the Group 2 articles. As to the allegation of murder, the respondents submit that that has been dealt with previously. There is no express statement that the applicant took the prosthetic leg back to Australia and encouraged his soldiers to use it as a novelty beer drinking vessel. They point to the fact that others are mentioned in the article and could have been responsible, such as the rookie or the higher ranking soldiers.
55 In my opinion, this imputation is conveyed or communicated by the Group 2 articles. I have already dealt with the aspect involving murder. Although the articles are directed at "fellow higher-ranking soldiers", a "rogue SASR team operating in Afghanistan" and "two more senior soldiers" and "Leonidas" and the latter is not the only soldier mentioned, the fact is that Leonidas is the soldier identified as the soldier who killed the man with the prosthetic leg and, therefore, absent an express reference otherwise, is the obvious person in the mind of the ordinary reasonable reader to have souvenired the leg.
The Group 3 Articles
56 The dispute between the parties concerning Imputations 7 to 14 inclusive and, in particular Imputations 7 and 8, is whether the words in the Group 3 articles conveyed or communicated imputations of guilt of the criminal or other misconduct alleged or only reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant is guilty.
