Page:R v McBride (No 4).pdf/32

 156․ In December 2013, he was assessed as having been "a very effective Legal Advisor" for the SOTG rotation 20. He was identified as being of "superior intellect" and "a very articulate and convincing speaker". Some indications of the tensions that were developing are shown by the comments that he could improve "by continuing to develop a more detailed understanding of the [nuances] involved in providing legal advice when there are competing priorities between command responsibilities and policy/legality" and the need to find common ground "when there are competing priorities between command responsibilities and policy/legality". However, he continued to be recommended for higher rank.

157․ By September 2014, the performance appraisal noted that he had "prioritised his development of a personal representation to [the] IGADF, impacting on the time and resources he was able to commit to the legal section". It indicated that working on the IGADF Submission had "caused him stress and fatigue, impacting on his performance". It noted that he "works relentlessly - sometimes to his personal detriment". It noted that he "stands firm to his convictions" and takes "a deep personal responsibility and interest in the professional wellbeing of the Command and its members". He was identified as "a highly confident lawyer with a strong belief in himself, his abilities and capacity to effect change". Although at that stage, the assessors anticipated him re-establishing his usual work capacity, no subsequent assessments were put into evidence.

158․ The report of Mr Borenstein summarises Mr McBride as placing "significant emphasis on honesty and adherence to morals and ethics" and notes his "sensitivity to diversions from moral and ethical standards".

159․ A personal reference from a former lawyer and friend of Mr McBride refers to him as having "a rare combination of humility and at the same time a passion for justice". The other personal references to which I have briefly referred earlier support the proposition that, in his personal and professional life, except during the period of the offending, he was a person of good character.

160․ I accept that Mr McBride was a person of good character. More than that, he demonstrated a strong devotion to his duty and performed well in the roles that he was assigned, at least up until his return from his second tour of Afghanistan. He was consistently identified as a person who was a strong candidate for further promotion within the ADF. There were signs, however, even within the performance appraisals upon which he relied, that he came to lack the ability to moderate his own opinions and the conviction of the correctness of his own opinions in a way which would allow him to continue to function at the level that he had within the Army.