In a recording held in federal court on Friday, May 2nd. age Investigative reporter Nick Mackenzie heard that he told Ben Roberts Smith's ex-girlfriend. That he “violated my f-king ethics” And if anyone finds it, they'll do “hand him his butt on a platter.”
A woman known only as Person 17 had claimed that Mackenzie was passing privileged information on Roberts Smith's legal strategy. age, and Sydney Morning Herald.
Roberts Smith Lost the procedure for honor loss And now, using recordings, we are trying to prove that there is a miscarriage of justice.
“They explain to us about his legal strategy about you…why we got this and say they don’t go. [to be] Despite your worst fears, I am hostile to you and I have told you many times that I will do so,” said annoyed Mackenzie.
The “they” who described Mackenzie about the Roberts Smith allegations was Daniel Scott, a friend of his ex-wife, Emma Roberts. At the heart of the inter-business hearing was the claims that were informed from Roberts Smith's email account by Ms. Roberts.
The former soldier's lawyer said certain materials were subject to legal professional privileges and were illegally accessed. Mackenzie denied that he knew it was a subject of privilege.
When he pushed whether he turned his mind to whether the information was a subject of privilege, Mackenzie said it was because Scott was “best friend” with Ms. Roberts, and the two were “rumors.”
“In this situation, when this person's best friend says he's trying to give me information and says that her best companion is telling her, I think that's a natural conclusion.
“Why do you think this is legally privileged? This is hearsay from my wife's best friend who has since been marginalized.”
Media Party lawyer John Sheehan KC said “the whole theory in which this case was brought up” overlooked three possibilities, including whether the document exists and whether information exists outside of Roberts Smith's email account.
Sheehan also pointed to evidence at the trial that Scott and Roberts had upheld Mackenzie's submission that they had “very close friends,” and that Roberts Smith's ex-wife had directed her friend to “do things with her email account.”
Arthur Moses SC, who appeared in Roberts Smith, asked the full bench to reject Mackenzie “as a credit witness.”
Regarding Moses' obedience, Mackenzie “comes to this court and in his own words he lies and deceives about the obvious entrance and gives evidence that the court should refuse.”
Moses made a special mention at the moment later in Mackenzie's cross-examination. The reporter said he was surprised to learn that 17 people were going to file a complaint against him, and even went to draft a statement of claim.
Mackenzie was then taken to a letter written to Person 17 by Minterellison, containing a reference to the recorded call.
Asked if he gave instructions to send the letter, Mackenzie said, “I can't remember, there were four or five legal exchanges. I can't remember if I was shown each of them. I can't remember this letter, I'm nine years old and I would have been one of my clients.”
Moses said, “What a god!” when submitting the deadline.
“Why are you saying that his lawyer wrote a letter on his behalf? [the information] So, what a goddamn he is. So he is in a witness box giving the court the answer, as if the court would buy this nonsense. It's garbage. ”
Moses also clearly failed the media party's failure to call for evidence from Scott or Ms. Roberts to “strengthen the denial of nakedness,” and what he said was a “really strange explanation” given by Mackenzie.
The court reserved its decision.
