In a landmark case, former Australian army lawyer David McBride was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for leaking classified documents that exposed allegations of war crimes by Australian forces in Afghanistan.
The sentencing took place in Canberra, where the 60-year-old McBride was handed a five-year and eight-month prison term after pleading guilty to charges including theft and unauthorized sharing of secret documents. Although he faced a potential life sentence, Justice David Mossop ruled McBride must serve at least 27 months before being eligible for parole.
Rights advocates argue that McBride’s conviction highlights the inadequacies in Australia’s whistleblower protections. The case underscores the troubling reality that David McBride is being punished while those implicated in the alleged war crimes remain uncharged.
Addressing his supporters outside the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, David McBride expressed pride in his actions. “I’ve never been so proud to be an Australian as today. I may have broken the law, but I did not break my oath to the people of Australia and the soldiers that keep us safe,” he declared to the cheering crowd.
Legal Appeal and Broader Military Duty
McBride’s lawyer, Mark Davis, announced plans to appeal a ruling that barred David McBride from mounting a defense. In a controversial decision, Justice Mossop previously determined that McBride’s duty as an army officer did not extend beyond following orders. Davis criticized this narrow interpretation, pointing out that the Australian military teaches a broader sense of duty.
The classified documents leaked by David McBride became the basis for a 2017 Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC) series detailing war crime allegations, including the killing of unarmed Afghan civilians by Australian Special Air Service (SAS) soldiers.
A police raid on ABC’s Sydney headquarters in 2019 aimed to uncover evidence of the leak, but the journalists involved were not charged.
In his sentencing remarks, Justice Mossop dismissed McBride’s claim that his actions were in the public interest. Mossop argued that McBride’s belief in the criminality of the Australian Defense Force’s higher echelons did not justify the leak.
Military Report and Charges
A 2020 military report corroborated McBride’s disclosures, revealing evidence that Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners. Despite recommendations for criminal investigations into 19 soldiers, only one, former SAS trooper Oliver Schulz, has been charged with a war crime so far.
In a separate civil case, Australia’s most decorated war veteran, Ben Roberts-Smith, was found to have likely unlawfully killed four Afghans, though he has not faced criminal charges.
Call for Stronger Whistleblower Protections
Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups argue that McBride’s sentencing is a stark reminder of the need for stronger whistleblower protections.
Daniela Gavshon, Australia director of Human Rights Watch, condemned the outcome, stating, “It is a stain on Australia’s reputation that some of its soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Afghanistan, and yet the first person convicted in relation to these crimes is a whistleblower, not the abusers.”
David McBride Supporters’ Reaction
In response to the sentencing, McBride’s supporters and several lawmakers have voiced their discontent. Kieran Pender of the Human Rights Law Centre described it as a “dark day for democracy,” warning that it sends a chilling message to future whistleblowers.
Journalist and press freedom advocate Peter Greste also expressed concern, emphasizing the vital role of whistleblowers and journalists in maintaining democratic transparency.
Government and Legal Response
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus refrained from commenting directly on the case due to the pending appeal.
The Australian Federal Police, in collaboration with the Office of the Special Investigator, continues to investigate potential charges against other military personnel involved in the alleged war crimes.
McBride’s case highlights the ongoing struggle between national security and the public’s right to know, raising critical questions about accountability and the treatment of whistleblowers in Australia.