Whistleblower who exposed war crime allegations loses bid to reduce prison time
Mr McBride said through his lawyers that Australians would be outraged by the Court of Appeal decision.
Mr McBride had argued that he leaked the documents out of a sworn duty to act in the public interest.
'It is my own conscience and the people of Australia that I answer to. I have kept my oath to the Australian people,' Mr McBride said in the lawyers' statement.
Mr McBride pleaded guilty last year to three charges, including theft and sharing with journalists documents classified as secret. He faced a potential life sentence.
Rights advocates complain that Mr McBride remains the only person to be imprisoned over allegations of war crimes committed by elite Australian special forces troops in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
A military report released in 2020 recommended 19 current and former soldiers face criminal investigations over 39 unlawful killings in Afghanistan.
Former Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment soldier Oliver Schulz was charged in March 2023 with murdering an unarmed Afghan in 2012. Mr Schulz pleaded not guilty to the war crime and has yet to stand trial.
Former SAS Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia's most decorated living veteran, lost an appeal two weeks ago against a civil court ruling that he unlawfully killed four unarmed Afghans.
Mr Roberts-Smith said he would appeal his loss in the High Court. He has not been criminally charged.
Mr McBride's lawyers also said they would take their appeal to the High Court.
'We believe that only the High Court can properly grapple with the immense public interest and constitutional issues at the heart of this case,' the lawyers' statement said.
'It cannot be a crime to expose a crime. It cannot be illegal to tell the truth,' the statement added.
The lawyers also called on attorney general Michelle Rowland, who was appointed after the Labor Party government was re-elected on May 3, to recommend Mr McBride be pardoned.
'It is now time for the attorney general to show leadership. To show Australians that this Labor government will no longer jail whistleblowers,' the lawyers said.
Ms Rowland did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
The documents became the source of a series of Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports in 2017 called the Afghan Files.
The reports detailed allegations against Australian soldiers, including the unlawful killing of men and children.
Mr McBride sought to fight the charges, but the court would not allow his defence that he had had a sworn duty as a military officer to act in the public interest.
The Court of Appeal will publish reasons for its decision at a later date.
Mr McBride can be considered for parole after he has served two years and three months, meaning he must remain behind bars until at least August next year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
18 minutes ago
- Spectator
The irony of the Afghan resettlement scandal
If there is one wholesale conclusion to be drawn from the Afghan resettlement scheme scandal, it's that a problem we have today is not so much a profusion of 'misinformation' but rather the suppression of genuine information. In Britain now, it's not 'fake news' that causes widespread resentment and anger, but moves made by successive British governments to silence real news. Ever since the masses decided to vote against their overlords in Britain and America in 2016 in the EU referendum and US presidential election of that year, the elites have propagated the belief that an unintelligent populace has been vulnerable to 'misinformation'. This is the idea that the suggestible lower orders have only become persuaded by populism because they get their news from unreliable social media outlets. Notwithstanding that there are myriad, genuine reasons behind the populist turn of the past ten years, what indisputably generates current indignation and fury are efforts to withhold information from the public. The decision by the previous Conservative administration to allow thousands of Afghans into the country secretly, and then by the successive Labour government to cover it up, is but the latest in a long line of fateful decisions to withhold the truth from the people. Many became aware of this increasing inclination towards state secrecy during the last decade, as revelations of the grooming gangs scandal began to emerge. Not only did the extent of these horrors come fully to light in January this year, but so too did the lengths to which local authorities and police forces had gone to keep these crimes quiet. While their failure to act, out of fear of accusations of racism, became a further source of outrage, revelations made by Dominic Cummings last month that Whitehall officials wanted to go to court in 2011 to cover up the whole episode have heaped yet more disgrace upon the state. The cowardly and deceitful response to these crimes by those in charge – a response going right to the top – is as much remembered now as the crimes themselves. Yet dishonesty, evasiveness and an active determination to withhold facts seem to have become the norm among those in charge. This was made clear after the mass stabbing and murder of three girls in Southport last July, the chief suspect of which, the public was simply and repeatedly told, was 'from Cardiff'. Were we told this because the authorities didn't want to let it be known that the chief suspect, Axel Rudakubana, was born in the Welsh capital to Rwandan parents? Merseyside police and countless politicians knew shortly after the attack that he was in possession of terrorist material, but on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service, the public was not told. It was the failure to disclose this information, one borne perhaps from a fear that it might inflame anti-immigrant sentiment, that paradoxically fanned the flames of anger which led to the riots that actually followed. The online rumour mill had indeed gone into overdrive, but it did so because many people don't trust the government to tell them the truth about these matters anymore. The public had become especially driven to cynicism and disbelief following the Islamist attacks in Britain and Europe in the 2010s, after repeatedly being informed that the perpetrators had 'mental health issues' or other such mendacities. Yet still the authorities continue to make matters worse out of fear that the truth must not out, lest the easily-aroused hoi polloi fly into a rage. Elsewhere this week we've read that the Home Office has refused to share the location of asylum hotels with food delivery companies such as Deliveroo, citing 'safety concerns' for hotel occupants. And only yesterday the Daily Telegraph reported that ministers once more fear riots will break out in Britain following the disclosures of the Afghan resettlement debacle. There is indeed much anger in Britain today about immigration. Yet the anger has seldom been conspicuously directed towards the incomers themselves – the assaults against immigrants after Southport last year were remarkable because they were unusual. However, the ire has mostly and increasingly been aimed at the liberal overclass who first decided that large-scale immigration was a good idea – for ideological reasons and stemming from vested economic interests – and then have lied and continued to lie about its consequences. When the general public do voice their resentment at the ballot box, or via mainstream or social media, the elites then have the audacity to accuse the masses of being stupid or ill-informed. The ultimate irony of our situation today, one in which the smothering of information has become the norm and expectation, is that it feeds a genuinely counter-factual, conspiratorial mindset. The language of 'government cover-ups' is rapidly becoming common parlance. This is the direct fault of governmental deceit and dishonesty over actual facts.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Spies and SAS personnel among 100-plus Britons included in Afghan data leak
Details of members of the SAS are among more than 100 Britons named in the database of 18,700 Afghans, the accidental leak of which by a defence official led to thousands being secretly relocated to the UK. Defence sources said the highly sensitive document contained names and email addresses belonging to people sponsoring or linked to some individual cases. Personal information about MI6 officers was also included. The identities of members of the SAS and MI6 are a closely guarded secret, and the possibility that such information could have ended up in the public domain was a source of significant official concern. SAS and other special forces officers were involved in assessing whether Afghans who said they were members of the elite 333 and 444 units, known as the Triples, were allowed to come to the UK. Defence sources said the dataset also referred to a 'secret route' that Afghans could use to come to the UK. This week it emerged that the Ministry of Defence had obtained a superinjunction preventing the disclosure of the leak and that a £2bn-plus scheme had been created to relocate some Afghans affected by the breach to the UK to protect them from the Taliban. That superinjunction lapsed on Tuesday, when a high court judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, concluded after a government review that the threat to the 18,700 Afghans was no longer very significant. Some of the remaining restrictions were relaxed on Thursday after another court hearing. The MoD said it would be possible to publish additional descriptions about contents of the database. In a statement on Tuesday, after the unprecedented superinjunction was lifted, the defence secretary, John Healey, offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the government for the data breach. He later told the Commons that the spreadsheet contained 'names and contact details of applicants and, in some instances, information relating to applicants' family members, and in a small number of cases the names of members of parliament, senior military officers and government officials were noted as supporting the application'. 'This was a serious departmental error,' he added. Parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC), which monitors the UK spy agencies, said it would scrutinise the affair, following on from an inquiry announced by the Commons defence select committee. The ISC asked that all intelligence assessments that had been shared with high court in secret now be shared with the committee. Its chair, Lord Beamish, asked why 'material relating to the data loss' could not be shared with the committee early given that it routinely reviews classified material. The MoD welcomed the proposed review. 'Defence intelligence and the wider department have been instructed by the defence secretary to give their full support to the ISC and all parliamentary committees,' a spokesperson said. The decision to seek an injunction preventing the disclosure of the data breach was first taken by Ben Wallace, then the Conservative defence secretary, in August 2023, when the MoD first became aware that the personal information had leaked to a Facebook group. A judge then ordered that the injunction remain secret, turning it into a rarely used superinjunction. Wallace's immediate successor, Grant Shapps, sought to maintain the gagging order until the general election in July 2024 while developing a secret relocation scheme for about 15,000 Afghans affected. The day-to-day task for developing the scheme was handed to one of Shapps's deputies, James Heappey, the then minister for the armed forces. On Thursday, in a social media posting, Heappey said the scheme was discussed in the cabinet's domestic an economic affairs committee. He said the committee 'tried to extend entitlements by smallest number possible', as led by legal advice, with little resistance from other members of the government. 'I don't recall fierce opposition. There was frustrated resignation that it was necessary,' he said. It can now be reported that the leaked data included the names, email addresses and phone numbers for thousands of Afghans who had applied to come to the UK under an existing relocation scheme designed for those who had helped the British military. In some instances the data contained further written information about their case and status of their application – focused on whether they had in fact helped the UK or British forces in Afghanistan – but it did not contain addresses or photographs. This week Afghans affected by the breach received a message addressed from the UK government, sent in English, Pashto and Dari, that warned the recipient's email address had been used to make a resettlement application and that some personal data may have been compromised. Details of the breach were limited, but recipients of the email – some of whom remain in hiding from the Taliban in Afghanistan – were advised 'not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts' and to limit who could see their social media profiles.
BBC News
7 hours ago
- BBC News
Afghan data breach: Just how bad is it for MI6 and SAS?
On the face of it, the Afghan data breach is very bad indeed. It is arguably the worst leak of secret UK government names since the former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson went rogue and published a list online containing dozens of names of MI6 officers in a case officer in the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), having your name and details outed in public is potentially a career-killer. That said, names can be changed, forged or disguised. What cannot be is biometric data - something increasingly used in counter-intelligence to uncover and catch spies - and there is no indication so far that UK officers have had this data leaked as well. For serving and former members of the highly secretive Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS), leaks like this one can, in theory, expose them to the risk of threat to life, given the lethal, covert operations some will have taken part in that may have involved the deaths or capture of individuals. The physical risk resulting from this leak to those members of UK Special Forces whose names were on the leaked dataset is judged to be minimal. Those who face the greatest risk are Afghans still in revelation that, in addition to the thousands of leaked names and details of potentially vulnerable Afghans, there are 100 or more involving British operatives is certainly shocking. But this "unauthorised data breach" was - belatedly - discovered as far back as August 2023. So that has given the UK intelligence and special forces communities nearly two years in which to come up with ways to mitigate this disaster and adopt whatever protective measures they can, for both Afghans and Brits on the leaked dataset. Amongst the worse-case scenarios that MI6 in particular will have had to consider is that Russia, China, Iran or even North Korea may now also be in possession of those leaked names. It is a fair assumption to make that the Taliban's intelligence apparatus would have had little interest in the names of long-departed British soldiers and spies. But they would be canny enough to work out who would be interested: the UK's global now, those who have most to fear are the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 relatives who are still in Afghanistan. Whatever routes out were being suggested to them will have now been compromised and the publicity surrounding this whole story will have inevitably re-energised some of the more fanatical members of the Taliban to hunt down those on the list and exact what they perceive as rightful vengeance for treachery during the 20 years when they were out of power.
