ADF says war-crimes defendant not entitled to protected-identity status

Defence has issued a statement on the topic of protected identity and how it affects former members – including the SAS trooper accused of war crimes.

The statement said that following the laying of war-crime charges against a former ADF member, it had been falsely claimed in social media that Defence Protected Identity status should be afforded to the former member

“Defence Protected Identity status, also known as PID status, is a Defence policy afforded to some current-serving Australian Defence Force members.

“This is to protect current, sensitive Defence capabilities and effects, our operations, the partners we operate with, as well as to safeguard the security of individuals and their families.

“In practice, Defence Protected Identity status applies to current-serving members of Special Operations Command and special-forces-qualified members who are likely to return to a position within Special Operations Command.

“Once these personnel fall outside these categories, they no longer hold Defence Protected Identity status.

“Personnel within Special Operations Command who hold public-facing positions are not afforded Defence Protected Identity status.

“Similarly, former ADF members are not covered by Defence Protected Identity status policy.”

The statement went on to say Defence would take steps to protect from public disclosure the identity of its members who do have Protected Identity status, but that it is not Defence’s position, nor has it ever been, to publish details of individuals with an active PID.

“In the context of civil and criminal court cases this includes the Commonwealth, on behalf of Defence, applying for suppression orders to prohibit the disclosure of information in certain circumstances.

“However, decisions regarding disclosure will be a matter for the courts.

“If Defence Protected Identity status is not applicable, but another national security requirement to protect an individual’s information is identified, Defence will make an application to the court to protect such information.

“The final decision on such an application is a matter for the courts.

“Irrespective of a person’s identity status, protected or not, it is Defence policy and practice to only release official content, or make public comment, that will not compromise an individual’s privacy in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988.

“Defence continues to provide welfare support and legal assistance to ADF personnel who participated in the Afghanistan Inquiry and/or are now participating in criminal investigations or proceedings relating to matters arising from the Afghanistan Inquiry.

“Welfare and other support services, along with information on legal assistance, is available.”


.

.


.


.

4976 Total Views 8 Views Today

Posted by Brian Hartigan

Managing Editor Contact Publishing Pty Ltd PO Box 3091 Minnamurra NSW 2533 AUSTRALIA

10 thoughts on “ADF says war-crimes defendant not entitled to protected-identity status

  • 23/04/2023 at 9:22 pm
    Permalink

    There’s a double standard that applies to so much relating to Australia’s Defence members – especially relating to the (still ‘secret’) VETERAN-DEBT DVA
    illegal activity – 2 years prior to the equally illegal ROBODEBT; which itself is still playing out in the old colonial R.C. inquiry – and still nobody ‘facing legal consequences’.

    So, what are the Veterans’ crimes that warrants that type of ‘activity’?

    Reply
  • 23/04/2023 at 8:28 pm
    Permalink

    Courage and loyalty are a one-way street in the ADF.

    Reply
  • 23/04/2023 at 6:51 pm
    Permalink

    So will this apply to official secrets too? The double standards is astonishingly corrosive.

    Reply
  • 23/04/2023 at 4:39 pm
    Permalink

    I bet if a POLITICIANS SON was involved it would be different !! It was the POLITICIANS who sent these TROOPS over there to FIGHT ! As usual NOT accountable !!! Same as always ……………

    Reply
  • 23/04/2023 at 3:15 pm
    Permalink

    What happened to the innocent until proven guilty?

    Is it a case of “march the guilty bastard in!”
    .

    Reply
  • 23/04/2023 at 2:41 pm
    Permalink

    It’s a wonder anyone bothers to serve in the ADF or any other institutions run by pencil neck, woke bureaucrats.

    Reply
    • 23/04/2023 at 4:00 pm
      Permalink

      More to the point, why would anybody put their hand up to go to Special Ops. The boys have been shafted by our so-called leaders who have escaped all but haven’t failed to medal up for their sojourns / visits to the bad lands.

      Reply
    • 23/04/2023 at 1:02 pm
      Permalink

      Closing ranks? yeah I agree

      Reply
    • 24/04/2023 at 1:28 am
      Permalink

      I absolutely agree Andrew.
      Abhorrent in the extreme.
      We fight these people in their lands – then invite them to
      live among us with their all consuming hatreds.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.