I don't think his claim of privilege will be successful cotton.
Based on this article.
>Four Australian soldiers have admitted they killed Afghan nationals on the orders of Ben Roberts-Smith and have given detailed evidence to prosecutors in the war crimes case against him, court documents allege.
>The testimony of the soldiers, who have been granted immunity from prosecution for their involvement, was revealed in a police statement of facts, as Roberts-Smith was granted bail by a Sydney court while awaiting trial for five charges of war crime – murder.
The reality of investigating serious crime means that sometimes you have to make deals with the devil, but giving four murderers a free pass has to be a new extreme. My question of all of you is does it go too far?
Personally it sits uneasily with me, but I can see an argument for doing it. BRS is a high profile scalp. Very few people will be unaware of this case. There is a strong deterrent value in future servicemen and women believing that the green wall of silence will not protect them. Maybe this was the only realistic way the investigators had of making a case against any of them, and the juice is worth the squeeze.
The argument against however is that these four men actually carried out the murders, and even if they were ordered to do so, they had an obligation to not carry out the unlawful order. We hanged people at Nuremberg who tried the defence of I was only following orders, and now we grant them immunity? I'd be far more comfortable with discounts for assistance.
Judge James Viney told the court Quayle's release stemmed from a clerical error made in Newcastle Local Court and that an intensive corrections order was issued by mistake.
Oops!