David McBride was met by his supporters outside court after he pleaded guilty last week. Photo: Albert McKnight.
A sentencing date has been set for whistleblower David McBride, although the prosecution has admitted it does not yet know whether it will ask for the court to be closed to the public.
McBride had been accused of providing confidential information to three ABC journalists from 2013 to 2017 during a posting in Canberra while he had been a lawyer and a major in the army.
After spending years before the courts fighting his charges, he pleaded guilty just days before his trial was to start.
On Thursday (23 November), the ACT Supreme Court set his sentence hearing date as 12 March 2024. The hearing is expected to take all day.
Usually, a sentence hearing is held first for lawyers to debate what a sentence should be before a matter is adjourned to another date for a defendant to be sentenced.
Registrar Jayne Reece asked the lawyers if there was an agreed statement of facts in the matter. Prosecutor Conor McCraith replied there was not one yet, but parties would negotiate to create one as “that is the ideal position”.
David McBride had fought his charges for years before pleading guilty. Photo: Albert McKnight.
The registrar also asked if any of the sentencing should be in closed court as there were logistical issues that needed to be addressed if that was the case.
Mr McCraith admitted he didn’t know and asked if he could advise the court at a later date.
The court heard it could depend on whether there was an agreed statement of facts for the matter.
McBride pleaded guilty to one count of dishonestly appropriating Commonwealth property and two counts of the unauthorised communication of military information to other people while a member of the Defence Force.
During the pre-trial arguments, before he entered his pleas, his lawyers had argued that due to an official oath he had sworn, there may be circumstances when his duty implied that he could act in the public interest of Australia.
However, Justice David Mossop rejected this argument. He said he would be directing the jury on the basis that there was no aspect of McBride’s role as a military officer that allowed him to act in Australia’s public interest when that was contrary to a lawful order he had been given.
Loading ...
