Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith continues to be "crucified" by three newspapers in their campaign of slander and defamation, a judge has been told.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The dire impact of the republications on him provided a compelling reason why his defamation trial should begin in March rather than in June next year, his barrister Bruce McClintock SC said on Friday.
He cited the newspapers' recent "florid and slightly deranged attack" on former AFP chief Mick Keelty who was said to have leaked information to Mr Roberts-Smith thereby compromising a war crimes investigation.
During the course of the story, the publications "renewed their attacks on my client".
The war hero is suing the publishers of The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times over articles he says defamed him in suggesting he committed war crimes in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.
Mr Roberts-Smith denies the claims.
His lawsuit was set down for a six-week Federal Court trial in June, but the date was vacated mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr McClintock on Friday urged Justice Anthony Besanko to list the trial for March while the Nine newspapers' barrister, Sandy Dawson SC, argued for a June start.
Mr McClintock said the uncertainties surrounding the pandemic may be resolved by March and if not, the matter could be revisited in January or February.
But the most compelling reason for an earlier hearing related to the newspapers "continuing their campaign of slander and defamation" against Mr Roberts-Smith, causing him more reputational and personal damage.
His client "is continuing to be crucified" by the papers, causing a dire impact on his welfare.
Mr Dawson said he and his junior barrister were not available in March due to their involvement in other trials.
While counsels' convenience would not ordinarily determine hearing dates, the case was unique in that they had undergone a very long process to be approved to have access to highly sensitive documents containing national security information.
"To start that process again for new counsel would be disastrous," he said.
The barristers also were fully familiar with the matter and the proposed witnesses, most of whom would need to come from interstate and could be subject to quarantines or travel restrictions.
Because of security issues, pre-trial conferences with witnesses could not beheld by phone or videolink and had to be in person.
To contend the pandemic issues might be resolved by March was "optimistic", Mr Dawson said.
His clients maintained what they published was true, that there was no ongoing "campaign" against Mr Roberts-Smith and they continued to carry out their function of publishing matters in the public interest.
The two experienced and respected journalists involved in the stories also had an interest in the matter coming to trial, but the case for an earlier date had not been made out, he said.
However, Mr McClintock said "the public interest in the case was extreme" and should trump other issues.
The judge is expected to give his decision on September 1.
Australian Associated Press