Page:R v McBride (No 4).pdf/33

 161․ As a result of his experiences when posted to Afghanistan in 2013, he appears to have, over time, become obsessed with the correctness of his own opinions as to the conduct of the organisation for which he worked. He came to be unable to accept that his views may not be correct. It was this misguided self-belief that led him to disregard the institutional methods for addressing his grievances and pursue them through the criminal conduct for which he is now charged.

162․ It is therefore not possible to make the finding contended for by counsel for Mr McBride. He was a person of good character and committed to his service within the ADF until he became so convinced of the correctness of his own opinions that he was unable to operate within the legal framework that his duty required him to.

Motivation

163․ Counsel for Mr McBride submitted that his motivation in engaging in the offending conduct was honourable in that he honestly believed that there was misconduct within the ADF with respect to the conduct of the Defence Force investigations of Special Forces soldiers in 2013. It was submitted that this was relevant both to the objective seriousness of the offending, as well as to subjective considerations.

164․ It is significant to note that no attempt was made to prove as a fact, for the purposes of sentencing, that the claims made by Mr McBride were justified, that they were inappropriately addressed by the IGADF or that the mechanisms for complaint or redress available under the law were not adequate. Rather, the contention put on behalf of Mr McBride was merely that he had an honest belief in the matters that he put forward.

165․ It is clear that Mr McBride had formed the opinion that the extent of the investigation of soldiers involved in the killing of civilians in Afghanistan had changed in 2012, and that this reflected the desires of the senior commanders of the ADF, but was improper because it involved investigation of soldiers even in circumstances where there was no prospect that they had committed the war crime of murder.

166․ It appears that his experiences during his second Afghanistan posting, during which he was personally involved in conflict with investigators sent by the ADFIS, had a very profound impact upon him. He had specific issues with the threshold for the commencement of investigations, the conduct of investigators and their use of warrants in one particular case. His experience caused him to lose faith in the leadership of the ADF in relation to the approach adopted to the investigation of killings of civilians in Afghanistan. He came to believe that the approach involved what he described as "cynical window dressing" in order to satisfy political concerns as to the death of civilians.