David McBride: ACT Supreme Court Appeal Denied
The justices have mischaracterized McBride's intentions, left a culture of lawless brutality to fester in Australia's elite SAS, punished a whistleblower and protected the guilty
[David McBride. By the ABC.]
Published: 2025-05-29
Note
This newsletter has been covering the persecution of David McBride, an Australian military lawyer and whistleblower of political, selective prosecution in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) since 2022 (see Sources).
Background
McBride "reported up the chain" within Australia's military that lesser crimes were being investigated and the more serious war crimes buried, a political perversion of justice which allowed a culture of illegal brutality to fester in Australia's elite Special Air Services (SAS). He observed this on two assignments in Afghanistan as a military lawyer for the SAS.
When no remedy was provided by the leadership of ADF, McBride leaked details to the Australian government funded national broadcaster, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
The journalists, informed of political prosecution, instead saw war crimes. That was the story they published, and with it gained national attention and were awarded the highest prize in Australian journalism, a Walkley.
Appeal Denied, Intention Mischaracterised
McBride's appeal of his conviction for theft of government property and distribution of classified information was denied by the 3 justices of the highest tier of courts in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) wherein McBride was charged and Australia's capital Canberra was created.
The justices have — and I can only use the word deliberately — mischaracterised McBride's complaint in their dismissal. This is nasty. The law is meant to deal with the substance of a complaint, not narratives about it carried in the media.
Consortium News obtained the 40 page judgment from the ACT Supreme Court and provided the blood boiling quotes summarizing their miscarriage of justice:
“In taking and disclosing the confidential material, the appellant was not attempting to bring allegations of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers to the public’s attention,”
[The judgement via Consortium News]
The above sub-clause is true but does not define what McBride's intentions were. The judgment continues with:
“On the contrary, the … appellant’s concern was not that alleged war crimes by Australian soldiers were being under-investigated by the ADF. Rather, his concern was the converse: that such allegations were being over-investigated by the chain of command.”
[The judgement via Consortium News]
This is a false characterization.
McBride's whistleblowing was that the investigations which were being made were of lesser offenses for political purposes. He witnessed a culture of lawless brutality, the murdering of unarmed, subdued combatants or civilians being allowed, indeed covered up, by the lack of prosecution of them.
McBride believes in honor in the military.
The laws of war are that which stand between a military and a band of trained, heavily armed thugs. An ethical understanding of the restrictions required by the laws of war are the honor which McBride and the rest of Australia's population demand of their military, and certainly its most elite units.
A 5-EYES cover-up
Given that the case exposed a moral sickness within the ADF, it is a touchy political topic.
More importantly, consistent external political pressure has been applied to all cases of war crimes prosecutions by other defense forces in the 5-EYES network of English language intelligence services (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, UK). The cover up is uniform. Exposing the SAS would also expose other militaries. This in turn would reveal the injustice and brutality of the warring conducted by the US and its military partners wherever they invade.
McBride’s crime was informing the public of the brutality of the West’s illegal wars.
Protecting the guilty
The denial of McBride's appeal by the ACT Supreme Court justices leaves McBride but one Australian court to which he can request an appeal, the High Court of Australia. Its jurisdiction is the Australian Constitution. It would not be inappropriate for the High Court to deny hearing an appeal as the matter may well be considered outside of its purview — a "not my problem" call.
Because of this the ACT justices deserve the condemnation which I hope they receive for this nasty mischaracterisation of McBride's intentions in their dismissal. They are protecting a culture of lawless brutality in the ADF's elite units and imprisoning a brave whistleblower who has been denied two defenses: a public interest defense, and one which included classified material which was removed from his possession at the beginning of his persecution years ago.
The war crimes are the symptom. The culture of lawless brutality is the cause.
Imprisoning McBride protects the guilty. It shields the political leadership of the ADF from scrutiny required to rectify a sickness at heart of Australia’s military.
for free (or “follow”), or support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.
Sources
McBride's Appeals Rejected; Joe Lauria; Consortium News; 2025-05-27
Earlier coverage
The Intolerable Persecution of David McBride: Moral Courage Shines Again; YesXorNo; 2022-11-05
Hipocrisy on Steroids: Yet Another Whistleblower is Being Persecuted; YesXorNo; 2023-11-07
McBride: An Offer You Can't Refuse; YesXorNo; 2023-11-21
Another Australian Whistleblower: The David McBride Story; YesXorNo; 2023-11-30
Guilty of Truth: Whistleblower McBride Sentenced for Years ; YesXorNo; 2024-05-17
Copyleft: CC0
The mask is off in the so called west.