Contributed by Jim Hayes

Former military lawyer turned whistleblower, David McBride, is in prison for exposing atrocities committed by members of the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan. Instead of commending him for his bravery in speaking out, a court sentenced him to five years and eight months in prison. By doing so, the court acted as political sensor, protecting killers, and sending out the message that those who speak out against wrongdoing by members of the Australian military will be punished.

Photo from the ACT Supreme Court of Australia

McBride’s lawyers appealed against the conviction and the length of the prison sentence last Monday. The technical charge and conviction involved the leaking of classified documents to the ABC. The sentencing court’s decision was about the leaking of these documents is more important than the wilful murder of non- combatant civilians. Not one of the killers found themselves convicted, and made to serve a sentence, despite the overwhelming evidence against them.

Barrister Bill Neild argued that the sentencing judge made a series of errors when imprisoning McBride last year, by failing to consider McBride’s motive to blow the whistle to correct a serious wrong. The fact that no intention for financial gain or other ulterior motives should be considered. McBride’s lawyer argued that the length of the sentencing was excessive. Most importantly, the leaking of documents was an act committed in Australia’s public interest.

Acting in the public interest means that the whistleblower has as duty to speak out, and this includes the release of unauthorised documents. The charging and conviction have been selective. The ABC and other media that published the information received different treatment. This is not to suggest that they should be punished. The certainly should not. But it does reveal an inconsistency in the application of the law.

Inconsistent application of the law suggests that this was a political decision. Military conduct overseas in the name of Australia must never be questioned. Big media can get away with quite a bit because it has political clout.

The court has reserved its decision on the appeal. And the decision made will be known. But it has always been the reality that David McBride’s real defence lies in public opinion. The campaign outside the court is what is decisive. A crowd of supporters were at the Canberra court on Monday. Bernard Colleary, who faced his own charges regarding the release of information about Australia’s surveillance of Timor Leste’s government, was there to show his own support.

Defenders of McBride will continue to campaign for him for as long as it takes to pressure the Australian government to Act on the side of justice and release him from prison.