conveyed is that the applicant had told a lie. In para 120, it is also stated that on Wednesday, 8 August 2018, and after he had been alerted that Fairfax Media knew of the allegations reported to police as well as the mysterious "Danielle Kennedy", the applicant contacted a Queensland police station claiming to be a victim of stalking by the lawyer. In other words, the meaning conveyed, according to the applicant, is that he was arguably inventing the stalking claim. The applicant then referred to para 131wherein it is stated that SAS insiders who are aware of some of the adverse allegations about the applicant or the conduct of his patrols have said that credible evidence has already been placed on record and on oath.
65 Finally, the applicant referred to the section dealing with his response (i.e., para 133 onwards). He submits that by that point, the damage to him had, in effect, already been done and could not be undone.
66 Before leaving the applicant's submissions, one particular point should be noted and it concerns Imputation 9 to the effect that the applicant as deputy commander of a 2009 SASR patrol, authorised the execution of an unarmed Afghan by a junior trooper in his patrol. The applicant submits that if the articles support a meaning which is a nuance of, or does not differ in substance from, the pleaded meaning, then that meaning may be considered. Further, if the Court determines that some lesser meaning is available, but that that meaning does differ in substance from the pleaded meaning, then the applicant said that he seeks leave to rely on that other meaning. The applicant submits that given the Particulars of Truth, and the fact that the Court is likely to have to make comprehensive findings on this point, there is no relevant unfairness in a departure from the pleaded meaning. He relies on the approach taken by Lee J in Stead v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 15; (2021) 387 ALR 123 (Stead) at [27]–[31]. In that case, Lee J considered differences between a pleaded imputation and the imputation found by the Court to have been conveyed or communicated by the publication in question. If there is no difference in substance between the two, then the applicant may rely on the meaning as found. If there is a difference in substance, but the meaning is a lesser meaning, then the applicant may rely on the unpleaded meaning where that would not cause unfairness to the respondents.
67 In oral submissions, this particular submission by the applicant was linked to the articles comprising the Group 3 articles and this particular imputation. Counsel for the applicant submits that if the Court considers that "acquiesced in the execution" or "observed and endorsed" or something to similar effect, was more "felicitous" wording, then because that
