Day two of the case against whistleblower David McBride focused on the intricacies of oath keeping and the meaning of duty. A key decision on this matter is expected on Wednesday, at which time the case may be referred to the Court of Appeal.
It was never going to be a straightforward affair. Yesterday’s proceedings finished with McBride lawyer Odgers going well past the court’s allotted time, arguing about the nature of duty.
This is a key issue to be resolved. Where Odgers argues that David McBride’s public duty overrides that of his military duty, the Crown argues that his primary duty is to follow orders.
Odgers is addressing the Crowns position that a military lawyers duty is not to the people of Australia but to simply obey. As McBride himself has said previously, why did he need to be admitted as a lawyer and have post admission…
— Eddie Lloyd (@worldzonfire) November 14, 2023
It’s an argument also central to the Nuremberg Trials after WW2, but there is no over-riding (Australian) authority to decide on it, hence the possibility of a referral to the Court of Appeal.
These deliberations were carried over to this morning’s proceedings, which were then adjourned until tomorrow at 10am when Justice Mossop will deliver his decision on the question of ‘duty’.
Spies Like Us: how natsec and Attorneys-G meddle with justice, whistleblower David McBride
