Ben Roberts-Smith outside the Federal Court earlier this week.Credit:James Alcock
The court heard on Friday that Person 56 was also present with Mr Roberts-Smith during a separate mission in Fasil in November 2012,which is relevant to the trial,but the newspapers had received information suggesting Person 56 was himself involved in an alleged killing at that time.
Minter Ellison partner Peter Bartlett,the lead lawyer acting for the mastheads,was cross-examined in the case on Friday by one of Mr Roberts-Smith’s barristers,Arthur Moses,SC,about communications with a barrister for Person 56 about the former soldier’s potential involvement in the case as a witness.
Mr Moses alleged that a “deal” or “agreement” had been struck for the newspapers to avoid asking Person 56 about issues that might incriminate him.
Mr Bartlett told the court that “Person 56 was a member of ...[Mr Roberts-Smith’s] patrol on two crucial missions” and “we have always taken the view that he would be in possession of information which would be to the benefit of this court”.
Mr Bartlett said the newspapers’ lawyers had been telling the barrister for Person 56 for two years that they were “very anxious” to speak to him directly or indirectly,and they were open to discussions about what he would discuss.
Person 56 did not want to give evidence in the proceedings at all and was under significant stress,the court heard.
Nicholas Owens,SC,acting for the news outlets,said on Friday that Person 56 had at one point “agreed to speak to us about Darwan only,and he did not agree to speak to us about Fasil or any other aspect of his Afghanistan service”.