Page:R v McBride (No 4).pdf/25

 the admissions made by Mr McBride in the course of his interviews with the AFP. The agreed facts reflected almost all of the factual matters (as distinct from the conclusions to be drawn from those facts) alleged in the Crown Case Statement prepared for trial. The agreed facts were approved by Elkaim J for the purposes of s 184(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) on 25 October 2019.

112․ Mr McBride was arraigned on 11 November 2019. The trial was listed to commence on 2 March 2020. However, on 5 February 2020, Mr McBride sought immunity from prosecution under the PID Act. The claim was listed for a pre-trial hearing to commence on 2 March 2020. However, on 14 February 2020, the trial listed to commence on 2 March 2020 was vacated because Mr McBride had obtained legal representation.

113․ The PID Act claim was listed for hearing to commence on 29 September 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the date was subsequently vacated and relisted for 3 May 2021. On 2 March 2021, the hearing to commence on 3 May 2021 was vacated on the application of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The hearing was relisted for 20 September 2021. That listing was subsequently vacated at Mr McBride's request and relisted for 24 October 2022. However, when it came to the hearing of the claim, Mr McBride discontinued his claim under the PID Act.

114․ On 13 April 2023, the criminal proceedings were again listed for trial commencing on 6 November 2023 with an estimate of three weeks.

115․ At the commencement of the trial, the court made a ruling as to the directions that would be given to the jury: R v McBride [2023] ACTSC 328; 20 ACTLR 272; R v McBride (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 330. An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on 16 November 2023: McBride v R [2023] ACTCA 42. On 17 November 2023, Mr McBride pleaded guilty to the three counts for which he is to be sentenced.

The Documents

116․ It is agreed in the Agreed Statement of Facts that the public disclosure of information in many of the documents taken by Mr McBride would, or would have been likely to, have prejudiced the defence, national security or international relations of Australia at the time. The information in a number of the documents is still capable of causing such prejudice as at the date when the Statement of Facts was agreed. The potential risks from disclosure of the documents will continue to decrease over time. However, some documents, in particular the ROE, have enduring intelligence value. The harm or potential harm to Australia's defence, national security or international relations from disclosure of the ROE still exists.