An
internal email from a top Defence Force Colonel suggests a statement
denying a journalist interviewed an Afghan colonel was needed in order
to damage the journalist's credibility and stop an inquiry into
revelations he made.
Freelance journalist Jon
Stephenson is taking the Defence Force and chief of defence Lieutenant
General Rhys Jones to court alleging defamation.
The
case began on Monday at the Wellington High Court before Justice Alan
MacKenzie and a jury. It is expected to finish next week.
During
cross-examination of Colonel Chris Parsons, Mr Stephenson’s lawyer
Davey Salmon read an excerpt from an email exchange between Colonel Jim
Blackwell, Col Parsons and others.
Part of an
email from Col Blackwell read: "Get the statement saying he has not done
an interview, get it witnessed by someone with credibility outside
NZDF.
"The more that we can prove that [Jon
Stephenson's] statements continue to be false, then the earlier we can
stop parties requesting an inquiry."
However, Col Parsons said the email did not contain a command or order from Col Blackwell.
"So
when he's saying we need to stop an inquiry, he is saying 'we want to
reduce the credibility of Jon Stephenson's overall message by claiming
he didn't go to the CRU base'," Mr Salmon proposed.
Col Parsons agreed the emails could be interpreted that way.
Mr Stephenson wrote a report in a 2011 edition of Metro
magazine claiming the Defence Force was complicit in handing over
detainees to Afghan authorities who later tortured the prisoners.
At the heart of the case
is a small passage in the 12-page article which says Mr Stephenson
visited the crisis response unit (CRU) base in Afghanistan and spoke to a
man referred as "Colonel M".
Shortly after it
was published, Lt Gen Jones and the Defence Force slammed the article,
saying parts of the article were inaccurate or did not happen.
Among the Defence Force's accusations was a claim the interview with "Col M" was made up.
A
senior member of the SAS, who also gave evidence yesterday, said it was
"very doubtful" Mr Stephenson was allowed to access the CRU base;
because of strict security measures.
Identified in court only as Lieutenant Colonel R, he said the CRU base had a strict policy about media access.
On
Wednesday Lt Gen Jones, following evidence given by Mr Stephenson,
conceded Mr Stephenson "probably" did go to the base and the person he
spoke to could have been "Col M". However, Lt Col R did not agree with
Lt Gen Jones’ view.
"I have first-hand knowledge of that base and that commander. I maintain my conclusion that visit did not occur."
He
did not have any theories about who Mr Stephenson talked to at the
base. Mr Stephenson said the man he interviewed, through an interpreter,
identified himself as the base commander.
Two
other current SAS members are expected to appear as witnesses during the
case. They will give their evidence from behind a screen and recording
of their voices was prohibited to conceal their identities.
At the end of the case the jury will decide whether the case amounts to defamation and if so, how much should be awarded.
3 News
Fri, 12 Jul 2013 5:00a.m.
Colonel Chris Parsons during cross-examination in court
An
internal email from a top Defence Force Colonel suggests a statement
denying a journalist interviewed an Afghan colonel was needed in order
to damage the journalist's credibility and stop an inquiry into
revelations he made.
Freelance journalist Jon
Stephenson is taking the Defence Force and chief of defence Lieutenant
General Rhys Jones to court alleging defamation.
The
case began on Monday at the Wellington High Court before Justice Alan
MacKenzie and a jury. It is expected to finish next week.
During
cross-examination of Colonel Chris Parsons, Mr Stephenson’s lawyer
Davey Salmon read an excerpt from an email exchange between Colonel Jim
Blackwell, Col Parsons and others.
Part of an
email from Col Blackwell read: "Get the statement saying he has not done
an interview, get it witnessed by someone with credibility outside
NZDF.
"The more that we can prove that [Jon
Stephenson's] statements continue to be false, then the earlier we can
stop parties requesting an inquiry."
However, Col Parsons said the email did not contain a command or order from Col Blackwell.
"So
when he's saying we need to stop an inquiry, he is saying 'we want to
reduce the credibility of Jon Stephenson's overall message by claiming
he didn't go to the CRU base'," Mr Salmon proposed.
Col Parsons agreed the emails could be interpreted that way.
Mr Stephenson wrote a report in a 2011 edition of Metro
magazine claiming the Defence Force was complicit in handing over
detainees to Afghan authorities who later tortured the prisoners.
At the heart of the case
is a small passage in the 12-page article which says Mr Stephenson
visited the crisis response unit (CRU) base in Afghanistan and spoke to a
man referred as "Colonel M".
Shortly after it
was published, Lt Gen Jones and the Defence Force slammed the article,
saying parts of the article were inaccurate or did not happen.
Among the Defence Force's accusations was a claim the interview with "Col M" was made up.
A
senior member of the SAS, who also gave evidence yesterday, said it was
"very doubtful" Mr Stephenson was allowed to access the CRU base;
because of strict security measures.
Identified in court only as Lieutenant Colonel R, he said the CRU base had a strict policy about media access.
On
Wednesday Lt Gen Jones, following evidence given by Mr Stephenson,
conceded Mr Stephenson "probably" did go to the base and the person he
spoke to could have been "Col M". However, Lt Col R did not agree with
Lt Gen Jones’ view.
"I have first-hand knowledge of that base and that commander. I maintain my conclusion that visit did not occur."
He
did not have any theories about who Mr Stephenson talked to at the
base. Mr Stephenson said the man he interviewed, through an interpreter,
identified himself as the base commander.
Two
other current SAS members are expected to appear as witnesses during the
case. They will give their evidence from behind a screen and recording
of their voices was prohibited to conceal their identities.
At the end of the case the jury will decide whether the case amounts to defamation and if so, how much should be awarded.
3 News
No comments:
Post a Comment