Latest / Real Crime with Adam Shand / Fog of War: Breaker Morant's Shadow | Tony Taouk

Transcript

Fog of War: Breaker Morant's Shadow | Tony Taouk · Real Crime with Adam Shand

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Appoche production Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shann. I'm
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: your host Adam Shann.
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: One hundred and twenty years before Ben Robert Smith, another
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: Australian soldier serving overseas was prosecuted.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: For killing prisoners of war.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: His name was Harry Harboard Morant, otherwise known as Breaker Moran,
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: and his war was in South Africa against the.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: War forces resisting British rule.
• 0:36
  Speaker 3: British forces are condemned for use of concentration camps as
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: guerrilla conflict grinds on in South Africa.
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: Brant and another Peter Hancock, were charged with twelve counts
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: of murder after being accused of a revenge free for
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: the killing of a beloved officer, Captain Percy Hunt.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Morant's council and the.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: Court martial argued the killings were lawful as British officers
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: had issued an order that no prisoners be taken.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: However, no such order could be found.
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Moranth and Hancock were executed by a firing squad in
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: nineteen oh two, and Morant in particular has become a
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: martyr scapegoat for the British trapped in a difficult war
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: against guerrilla forces.
• 1:18
  Speaker 3: Two Australians shot at dawn. Morant and Hancock face firing
• 1:22
  Speaker 3: squad after controversial Burl War court martials.
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: The break of Moran's case provides something of a precedent
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: as we look at the Ben Robert Smith case, who
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: in the killing of five Afghan nationals alleged was also
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: acting after the murder of his comrades by an Afghan
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: soldier fighting alongside Australian forces.
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: Australia's most decorated living soldier, charged Victoria Cross recipient Ben
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: Robert Smith faces murder allegations over Afghanistan operations.
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: I came across a fascinating article in Lawyers Weekly written
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: by a longtime supporter of mine, Sydney lawyer Tony Toak
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: of Magna Caada Lawyers, the prosecutions of Ben Robert Smith
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: and Breaker Morant and the difficulty of prosecuting actions taken
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: in the so called fog of war.
• 2:14
  Speaker 3: Brereton Report finds credible evidence Australian special forces unlawfully killed
• 2:20
  Speaker 3: thirty nine civilians and prisoners in Afghanistan.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: And it's my real pleasure to welcome Tony to the
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: Studio Gida. Tony hi Adam, thank you for having me
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: absolute pleasure, and thank you for reading all my books
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: when you contact the music.
• 2:37
  Speaker 4: Great Yes, yes, so I love these books. Yes, I've
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: read pretty much all of them. Yes, thank you.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: The fog of war.
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: That's what the Breaker Morant case and the Ben Robert
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: Smith matter have in common, the inability to get clarity
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: about what you're looking at, particularly retrospectively.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: That's right.
• 2:59
  Speaker 4: There are a lot of parallels between both cases, and
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: it's not on the specific facts, it's the broader tension
• 3:06
  Speaker 4: generated by both cases. In both cases you have Australian
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: soldiers accused of unlawful killings arising from a highly irregular
• 3:14
  Speaker 4: warfare in foreign conflicts. So on one hand you have
• 3:17
  Speaker 4: the Bore War and on the other hand you have Afghanistan.
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: One was at the turn of the century. One was
• 3:24
  Speaker 4: early two thousands twenty tens. They were obviously very different conflicts,
• 3:29
  Speaker 4: separated by more than a century, but they both involved
• 3:32
  Speaker 4: difficult counterinsurgency or guerrilla style warfare in foreign terrain against
• 3:39
  Speaker 4: elusive enemies where there were the conventional distinctions between combatants
• 3:43
  Speaker 4: and civilians could become very blurred, so you could easily
• 3:47
  Speaker 4: kill or shoot the wrong person. In both cases, the
• 3:51
  Speaker 4: prosecutions became symbolic of something much larger than the individual accused.
• 3:56
  Speaker 4: Breaker Morane in his case became symbolic of things like
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: colonial resentment, the perception that Australian soldiers were doing AND's
• 4:05
  Speaker 4: dirty work. Also, there's the issue with political sacrifice, which
• 4:09
  Speaker 4: I think you're familiar with, where they skagoaded him and Hancock.
• 4:14
  Speaker 4: There was a widespread fear that soldiers were carrying responsibility
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: for morally compromised war. The Boll War became infamous for
• 4:21
  Speaker 4: the British use of concentration camps and counterinsurgency tactics. Similarly,
• 4:29
  Speaker 4: in the case of Robert Smith, it's become symbolic of
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: Australia's involvement alongside the United States in Afghanistan, the Special
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: forces culture which is very secretive, and it's Australia's post
• 4:42
  Speaker 4: war moral reckoning and broader questions about military accountability. These
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: things happened in the US around the time of the
• 4:50
  Speaker 4: Vietnam War, with things like the trial of Lieutenant Kelly
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: for the murder of civilians in the infamous Meli massacre.
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: I think both cases reflect a recurring anxiety which leads
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: to the question and civil institutions fairly judge battlefield conduct
• 5:07
  Speaker 4: after the war itself has ended, in this case decades.
• 5:11
  Speaker 4: What makes these cases so compelling is the collision between heroism, secrecy, violence,
• 5:16
  Speaker 4: and allegations of criminality all stuck together.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: That's right.
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: And there's a lot of uproar about this in the
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: general community, and you talk about morally compromised wars, and
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: I think it's the general community that sent their children
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: to war, that's right, and so I think they have
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: more skin in the game than many others in this situation.
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: And the idea that, as with Breaker Morant, that it
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: was expedient in the face of the brutality and cruelty.
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: The British were engaged, and you rightly point out in
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: South afric concentration camps all kinds of war crimes really
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: what you call them today. To have the scapegoats Hancock
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: and Morant was very convenient, and I think the general
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: consensus is that.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Robert Smith is also a.
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: Scapegoat, and therefore the stakes are very high in this prosecution.
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: One of the big difference, of course, is that Brant
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: was prosecuted under martial law and Robert Smith under a
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: civil law.
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: What's the difference. There's a big difference.
• 6:25
  Speaker 4: As I said in my article, criminal courts are designed
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: around assumptions of clarity and reliability. For example, if someone
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: shot on a suburban street in Sydney or Melbourne, police
• 6:36
  Speaker 4: can usually secure the scene, immediately, obtain CCTV footage, recover
• 6:41
  Speaker 4: forensic evidence, analyzed phone records, interview witnesses in a relatively
• 6:46
  Speaker 4: controlled environment. Battlefields are the complete opposite of that. As
• 6:50
  Speaker 4: you'd expect, combat environments are extremely chaotic. Battlefields often destroy
• 6:56
  Speaker 4: or disperse evidence almost instantly. For example, police can seal
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: off a street after a shooting. Soldiers in combat may
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: need to leave an area immediately under ongoing threat. Because
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: they move around, they can't stay there. It's dangerous. Memories
• 7:10
  Speaker 4: become fragmented. For example, a shooting in suburban Signeor Melbourne
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: can often be reconstructed through cameras or independent witnesses. Combat operations,
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: on the other hand, may rely on fragmented memories years later,
• 7:24
  Speaker 4: in the case of Ben Robert Smith, more than a
• 7:27
  Speaker 4: decade later. Events unfold rapidly under pressure. For example, police
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: investigations generally occur after events have ended. Combat decisions occur well.
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: The danger is still unfolding in real time. Often there's
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: little or no contemporaneous documentation. Unlike with criminal investigations, combat
• 7:48
  Speaker 4: operations occur without CCTV body worn cameras. There are no
• 7:52
  Speaker 4: preserved crime scenes. There are usually no detailed contemporaneous records
• 7:56
  Speaker 4: because events unfold rapidly in very dangerous and chaotic circumstances.
• 8:02
  Speaker 4: So you have a situation where years later, so then
• 8:05
  Speaker 4: asked to reconstruct these events with precision according to criminal
• 8:09
  Speaker 4: law standards, not military standards. Again, this is an extraordinarily
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: difficult task, and again none of this removes accountability, but
• 8:18
  Speaker 4: it does demonstrate how unusual and complex wartime prosecutions really are.
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, just explore that difference though, between being tried by
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: a military court and a civil court, the specific difference
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: of the burden of proof. I mean, Moran was convicted
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: and executed after being found guilty in a military court.
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: And when you watch the film Breaker Morant, you say
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: this is a kangaroo court, that that was already a
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: confirmed decision was there. But you've made the point of
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: air that Morant's lawyer, Thomas maybe didn't do that well.
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: And what you're saying is the defense had plenty on
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: their side given the fog of war and all the
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: issues you've just mentioned. So let's talk about Morant's prosecution first. Yes,
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: it's very interesting. In my opinion, the whole trial was
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: a fast Morant. At his trial it was his lawyer,
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: Major Thomas.
• 9:11
  Speaker 4: He argued that he was effectively operating within a take
• 9:14
  Speaker 4: no prisoner's environment, although that was not formally documented. Now
• 9:19
  Speaker 4: that raises questions about implicit expectations, operational culture, command responsibility,
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: and unofficial practices within regular warfare.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Now, obviously every.
• 9:30
  Speaker 4: Case turns on its own facts, but the broader issue
• 9:34
  Speaker 4: remains relevant to what extent to courts examined not just
• 9:38
  Speaker 4: individual conduct but also the operational and cultural environment surrounding
• 9:42
  Speaker 4: that conduct.
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: And in the case of Morant, they could find no
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: written order to that effect that there should be no
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: prisoners taken on the basis of that he was executed.
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: That's right, But it could have been argued that there
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: was an implicit order. There was demonstrated consent, there was
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: a wink and a nudge approach to these things.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: That's right, and.
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: Particularly in the light of growing frustration of the British
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: with the success of the Boar tactics.
• 10:11
  Speaker 4: The Tribuna rejected the argument that he was lawfully carrying
• 10:14
  Speaker 4: out the orders to execute the prisoners, but the controversy
• 10:17
  Speaker 4: surrounding the case has never really disappeared. Critics have long
• 10:20
  Speaker 4: argued that the proceedings moved too quickly, the defense was underprepared,
• 10:25
  Speaker 4: and most importantly, the political atmosphere surrounding the Boer War
• 10:30
  Speaker 4: influenced the process. Critics of long argued that British authorities,
• 10:34
  Speaker 4: including Lord's kitchener, were under pressure to demonstrate accountability for
• 10:38
  Speaker 4: the brutality occurring during the war. Now you add to
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: that what you mentioned before. He was arguably disadvantaged by
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: the fact that his defense lawyer, James Francis Thomas, was
• 10:49
  Speaker 4: a country solicitor with limited experience in advocacy and military law,
• 10:54
  Speaker 4: and he was thrust into an extraordinarily serious and politically
• 10:58
  Speaker 4: charged court martial with limited time and resources. So Morant
• 11:02
  Speaker 4: has become a convenient, simple defendant. Now would that process
• 11:08
  Speaker 4: would stank scrutiny today? Probably not in procedural terms, which
• 11:12
  Speaker 4: brings me to a question. Yes, I've got a time machine.
• 11:16
  Speaker 4: I'm taking you back to South Africa, turn of the century.
• 11:20
  Speaker 4: You're assisting Thomas in the defense. What would be your
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: advice to him, bringing all the knowledge you have about
• 11:25
  Speaker 4: this situation back to that moment. First of all, I
• 11:29
  Speaker 4: would push for a lot more disclosure so I'm not
• 11:33
  Speaker 4: ambushed by any unseen evidence by the prosecution. I would
• 11:38
  Speaker 4: subpoena British authorities, the Department of Defense or the Ministry
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: of Defense, whatever it was called at the time, all
• 11:45
  Speaker 4: the commands. I would just send out a whole array
• 11:48
  Speaker 4: of subpoenas to make sure all the information was there.
• 11:51
  Speaker 4: I would make sure that I had enough time to prepare.
• 11:56
  Speaker 4: I would make sure the forensic standards were a lot higher,
• 12:00
  Speaker 4: you know, everything was scrutinized, a lot more. I'd make
• 12:03
  Speaker 4: sure there are a lot more stronger procedure protections. But
• 12:07
  Speaker 4: that doesn't mean the outcome itself would necessarily change. Some
• 12:11
  Speaker 4: people still believe that Breaker Morant was guilty of serious,
• 12:14
  Speaker 4: unlawful killings and deceived punishment, just as public opinion today
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: he remains sharply divided.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: In relation to Ben Robert Smith.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we make no allegations about the evidence in that
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: case that's yet to run in the courts. But I
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: think the phrase that sticks with me in all this
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: is command responsibility. Major Thomas was unable to prove that
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: Moran's command was responsible, knew, and somehow tacitly approved this,
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: And I think I one would hope in the public
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: interest that in the Ben Robert Smith.
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: Case that that's probed as well.
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: And if you're defending that case, I would imagine you'd
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: want to put senior ADF officers in the box to
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: answer the same questions as Major Thomas was trying to
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: pose for breaking morand about where the buck.
• 13:03
  Speaker 4: Stops absolute In cases like this, you can't just examine
• 13:09
  Speaker 4: individual conduct. You also have to look at the operational
• 13:12
  Speaker 4: and cultural environment surrounding the conduct.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: We'd break him around itself.
• 13:17
  Speaker 4: He argued that he was operating under an unofficial so
• 13:21
  Speaker 4: it wasn't documented as you're aware, take no prisoner's culture
• 13:25
  Speaker 4: that arose after the killing of Captain Hunt you mentioned before,
• 13:29
  Speaker 4: so he was not really acting purely as an isolated individual.
• 13:33
  Speaker 4: There was a similar situation with the Meli massacre during
• 13:36
  Speaker 4: the Vietnam War that raised similar questions about whether responsibility
• 13:40
  Speaker 4: rested solely with Lieutenant Kelly or also with the broader
• 13:44
  Speaker 4: command culture and operational practices within the unit. You got
• 13:48
  Speaker 4: the Nuremberg trials after World War Two. Those grappled directly
• 13:52
  Speaker 4: with whether individuals could rely on broader military or political systems.
• 13:57
  Speaker 4: In other words, they were just following orders as part
• 14:00
  Speaker 4: of their defense that was unsuccessful.
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: As we all know.
• 14:03
  Speaker 4: That's one of the deepest resolved issues in wartime accountability generally,
• 14:08
  Speaker 4: and that's going to rise now for sure. So criminal
• 14:11
  Speaker 4: law in its nature focuses on individuals, but wars are
• 14:15
  Speaker 4: not created or conducted by isolated individuals acting alone. Battlefield
• 14:19
  Speaker 4: conduct occurs within command structures, operational expectations, military culture. So
• 14:27
  Speaker 4: one of the enduring tensions in these cases is whether
• 14:30
  Speaker 4: accountability becomes concentrated too narrowly on individual soldiers while broader
• 14:36
  Speaker 4: institutional responsibility remains more dispersed. So we've got to see
• 14:41
  Speaker 4: what happens, and that's right, and I think if that's
• 14:44
  Speaker 4: perceived to be happening Tony, then I think you create
• 14:47
  Speaker 4: the martyr and break a Miranda is a martyr in
• 14:50
  Speaker 4: Australian culture, and he was not a good guy when
• 14:53
  Speaker 4: you read his history.
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: Yes, he was a liar, achieved, a con man, a drunk.
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: There was one instance where he claimed to be the
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: son of a particular admiral and stayed in this hotel
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: for months on end and then didn't bill and said, oh,
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: my father will pay it. And there was absolutely no
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: connection whatsoever. But the way the British treated him has
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: provided fodder for martyrdom and that's what Rand became. And
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: I wonder whether we're falling into the same territory with
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: Ben Robert Smith. And obviously I make their allegations. The
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: evidence is not even before the court yet, but the
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: prosecution has a similar expeedi and feel that's what the
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: public believes.
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: I think that's.
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: Why this prosecution will become an enormously important reference point
• 15:33
  Speaker 4: for how Australian courts approached war crimes in the future. Ultimately,
• 15:37
  Speaker 4: this case is testing something much larger than one defendant.
• 15:41
  Speaker 4: It's testing whether an ordinary civilian criminal law can meaningfully
• 15:46
  Speaker 4: and fairly assessed battlefold conduct years after the events themselves.
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: And I suspect the courts, governments and the militaries will
• 15:52
  Speaker 4: continue grappling with that tension for decades to come, like
• 15:56
  Speaker 4: they've done with the Breaka Morant case.
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: That's a very good point, you know, because in the
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: case of morand his span of crimes was aug to
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: September nineteen oh one. It was executed in February nineteen
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: oh two. So the investigators had they cared to, had
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: plenty of evidence, witnesses, locations to visit. And when you
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: look at Ben Robert Smith, what is it fourteen years
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: since the alleged conduct took place?
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: Yes, around twenty twelve from what over recal.
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: So there you are, as the defense, you're thinking that's
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: an advantage, and I think that was part of the
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: reason why they could have convicted Breaker Morant because things
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: were so fresh. But I think if you're the defense,
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: you're liking going into court with a case that's compiled
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: from fourteen years before. And it really plays into what
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: you're saying is how on earth do you apply a
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: civil standard to beyond a reasonable doubt when you have
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: no access to the crime scene, no ballistics, no forensics.
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: You rely almost solely upon immunity witnesses who were there,
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: who also are alleged to have committed the same crimes.
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: But they're getting a hall pass because they're going to
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: give evident and against the prize the Victoria Cross recipient.
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think these are all gifts or gifts
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: for the defense.
• 17:12
  Speaker 4: And you have a criminal law system that assumes that
• 17:15
  Speaker 4: events can be reconstructed with clarity. It assumes that witnesses
• 17:19
  Speaker 4: can reliably recall events, that intent can be identified, that
• 17:24
  Speaker 4: evidence can be preserved, rules can be meaningfully separated. Battlefields
• 17:29
  Speaker 4: undermine all those assumptions. Combat environments produce fragmented accounts. As
• 17:34
  Speaker 4: I said before, conflicting recollections, operational secrecy, morally ambiguous situations
• 17:40
  Speaker 4: where lawful and unwawful conduct mainly become distinguishable years later.
• 17:44
  Speaker 4: So that's what makes this so uniquely difficult, and it
• 17:48
  Speaker 4: will have an impact on Ben Roberts Smith's trial because
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: the courts are going to be dealing with conflicting recollections,
• 17:55
  Speaker 4: credibility disputes, incomplete operational evidence, events occuring in highly pressurized
• 18:02
  Speaker 4: combat conditions that occurred many years ago.
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: The prosecution still carries the burden of proof.
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's a heavy one in this case, and beyond
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: reasonable data is a bit to prove, and I think
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: they're going to struggle. One interesting thing, a lot of
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: people would never have heard of the Office of the
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: Special Investigator before this case, and they're part of the investigation.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: They're up there with the AFP doing the press conference
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: when Robert Smith was arrested. What is that body and
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: why are they involved?
• 18:32
  Speaker 4: Well, the Office of the Spectable Investigator. It's historically significant
• 18:36
  Speaker 4: because Australia deliberately chose to move these allegations into an
• 18:42
  Speaker 4: ordinary civilian criminal process rather than treating them purely as
• 18:47
  Speaker 4: internal military matters, like was the case with Braga Moran
• 18:52
  Speaker 4: when he appeared in front of the British court martials.
• 18:55
  Speaker 4: That reflects a very important policy decision. Now, what it
• 18:59
  Speaker 4: suggests to me is that the Australian state believes that
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: allegations of this seriousness, because of the public outcry, require
• 19:08
  Speaker 4: an independent investigation. Hence why this vehicle was created civilian
• 19:12
  Speaker 4: oversight and ordinary criminal law accountability instead of the military standard.
• 19:20
  Speaker 4: So that's a major legal and historical development. So they're
• 19:25
  Speaker 4: putting it in the civilian realm instead of keeping it
• 19:27
  Speaker 4: in the military realm. I think there must be a
• 19:31
  Speaker 4: reason for that. I think the criminal law standard would
• 19:33
  Speaker 4: be a lot lower, maybe standard proof right the civilian
• 19:39
  Speaker 4: you're saying, yes, the civilian law standard would be somewhat lower.
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: Okay, so he's got even got a better chance. So
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: this could be said to be an area of emerging
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: jurisdiction for Australia, the AFP, and ultimately the courts.
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: Absolutely we will be.
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: Able to reach into those war zones years later and
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: bring cases.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: So how are we going to go with that? Is
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: that practical?
• 20:05
  Speaker 4: Not really, because criminal law traditionally depends on clear evidence,
• 20:08
  Speaker 4: identifiable intent, reliable factual construction. The fog of war, as
• 20:15
  Speaker 4: is the case with Ben Robert Smith, undermines all those resumptions.
• 20:19
  Speaker 4: People operate under fear, exhaustion, confusion, and rapidly changing operational circumstances.
• 20:26
  Speaker 4: So you've got a situation where courts are forced to
• 20:29
  Speaker 4: apply ordinary criminal law principles to environments that are inherently
• 20:34
  Speaker 4: disordered and morally ambiguous, and that creates enormous evidentiary and
• 20:39
  Speaker 4: philosophical tension. For example, ordinary criminal law assumes in tent
• 20:44
  Speaker 4: can be carefully analyzed, but battlefield decisions often made in
• 20:48
  Speaker 4: seconds under perceived threats. So I think that tension between
• 20:53
  Speaker 4: those two systems sits right at the center of the
• 20:57
  Speaker 4: Robert Smith case.
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: Well, we shall see, Tony Tug. It's been a pleasure
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: to talk to you, mate. It's a fascinating comparison with
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: Breaker Morant, and I think what they do share is
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: the potential for martyrdom when the court, when the Crown. Besides,
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: it's going to get involved in these situations years after
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: the fact with a certain level of expediency, can we say,
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: with some cynicism. So thanks for sharing your article with us.
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: We'll put a link in the buy of the show
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: notes And Tony's been a pleasure to talk to you.
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Adams.
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: That was Tony Tolk from Magna Carter Lawyers in Sydney
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: talking about the fascinating comparison between Breaker Morant and Ben
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: Robert Smith. We aren't talking about the evidence, it's how
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: these trials are being brought and is their clarity on
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: how these trials can be run given their lack of evidence,
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: lack of resources, the time that's passed, and even really
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: the sense, the moral sense, is it right to be
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: prosecuting our soldiers for actions that have taken place overseas
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: many years before. I'm reminded, how did that line from
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: Apocalypse Now Martin Sheen when he's going up the river
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: kill Marlon Brando's colonel Kurtz and he says, shit, charging
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: a man with murder in this place was like handing
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: out speeding tickets in the Indy five hundred.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: I wonder whether we may look.
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: Back on the Ben Robert Smith prosecution with the same sentiment,
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: What do you think if you were to report a crime,
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: please call crime Stoppers one hundred, triple three, triple zero.
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: If you don't trust the cops, I understand that you
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: can always.
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: Email me Adam Shanner writer at gmail dot com and
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: I'll handle your inquiry your story. I'd love stories, by
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: the way, with the utmost discretion. It's in a pleasure
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: talking to you again today. Thanks for listening. This has
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: been Adam shann.
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to this episode and supporting this story.
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: Independent story telling that shapes the world is what podshape
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: really cares about. Right now, There's thousands of people listening
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: to this show and our other true Crimes, and they're
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: completely engaged.
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: More than ten million Australians listen to podcasts each week.
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: If you've ever thought about advertising your business in a podcast,
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: there's a link to reach out in the show notes,
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: or head to podshape dot com to book a free call.