踩過界 Crossing The Line (by Nick McKenzie) 之三

有人認為Roberts-Smith與傳媒的對簿公堂是傳媒之間的對壘, 這也是事實。我們先要了解背景。Roberts-Smith背後金主是7台的大老闆Kerry Stokes。Stokes欣賞Roberts-Smith的戰功,  把他招攬入公司管理層成為經理,  一般來講經理級的人是記者晉升的, Roberts-Smith除了打仗外毫無管理經驗, 讀書時因學習困難一早就去當兵, 沒有大學的學歷所以不是由officer做起。退役後他也讀了個MBA, 但 Stokes聘用他相信是為了塑做一個國家英雄出來, 承傳ANZAC hero的百年傳統, 為澳爭光。ANZAC是Australian and New Zealand Army Corps的簡稱。Stokes看中Roberts-Smith大概是想利用他來作為澳洲品牌的代表, 不惜用7台的資金為他興訟,  這樣做無疑拉股東落水, 因為7台是上市公司,  受質疑後Stokes改用自己的錢來押在Roberts-Smith身上。以澳洲一貫誹謗案的判決而言, Roberts-Smith的贏面很大。話雖如此, Roberts-Smith也掏出那枚維多利亞十字勳章作為抵押品。

Roberts-Smith's employer, Kerry Stokes, was also showing no signs of walking away from his senior executive. The billionaire media mogul was still lending Robers-Smith the funds to go to legal war. In return, the war hero had given his Victoria Cross medal, worth an estimated $2 million, as collateral. Stokes' newspaper, the West Australian, was also backing Roberts-Smith. 

(p.314)

作為被告一方的McKensie是名記者, 因他的偵查報道發表在Sydney Morning Herald等報章上,  所以報章媒體被列為被告, 2018年9台透過收購Sydney Morning Herald及The Age, 無形中成為McKensie的新老闆, 而新老闆也肯提供資金來抗辯,  甚至在財政預算方面已預留一筆巨額準備敗訴時作撇賬用。所以說這世紀誹謗案是傳媒之爭也沒錯。

McKensie一方的抗辯理由是truth defence, 而不是public interest defence, 因為在澳洲以public interest來抗辯十居其九都敗訴, 所以McKensie只要能夠證實Roberts-Smith犯了一宗戰爭罪行就可立於不敗。在本案開審前McKensie提出和解方案, 但Roberts-Smith不肯接受, 認為自己必勝。當時Brereton還未完成調查報告。McKensie一直都心情忐忑, 已準備了因敗訴而完結記者生涯。

McKensie在書中一直對勝訴不樂觀, 直至頒佈判決之前的一刻, 還形容Roberts-Smith的律師團對贏官司信心十足:

The eve before Justice Besanko was to deliver his judgment, Nic Ownes called me. He had heard that Roberts-Smith's legal team was brimming with confidence. I could tell Owens was desperately nervous.

(p.445)

這描述跟我間中留意審訊報導的印象並不一致, Brereton報告發表後, Campbell立即公開道歉, 我已覺得McKensie勝算很大。主審法官Besanko很明顯受到Brereton及Campbell等人的立場所影響, 而選擇信納McKensie一方的證人的講法而否定Roberts-Smith一方的證言。最後也一面倒判一切指控Roberts-Smith干犯戰爭罪行成立。

支持Roberts-Smith的權貴, 未必真心以為特種部隊沒有幹壞事, 而是那種大國心態作祟, 我幫助你打塔利班, 打死一些無辜的人也沒有甚麼大不了,  違反日內瓦對待戰俘的規則又怎樣,  所以往往以"fog of war"來開脫, 覺得戰爭就是這樣的,  兵荒馬亂,  不是你死就我亡, 為甚麼要抹黑冒着為國捐驅之險的戰士。在他們眼中, 指證Roberts-Smith的吹哨人都是"rats", "snitches", 所以要以法律訴訟來使他們噤聲。

McKensie在書末, 描述勝訴慶功宴後回到Bondi Airbnb的心情:

I opened the window so I could hear the waves and began drafting a story I had hoped to write if we won the case. It was about all the dirty tricks Roberts-Smith had employed to cover up his monstrous crimes.

It started with words I had never before used without a qualifying term such as 'alleged' or 'suspected'.

It began: 'War criminal Ben Roberts-Smith...'

After years spent fighting to prove these words were accurate, it felt strange to finally see them on the page. But it also felt good.

It was the truth.

(p.449)

如果沒有財雄勢大的後盾,  窮鬼書生有甚麼能力講出真相?  不是被人告到甩衭,  就是被政權收拾了。這本書毫無保留攻擊Roberts-Smith, 批評金主Stokes利用財力不當支持戰犯,  連Arthur Moses SC的盤問策略也大肆批評, 不單止在乘勝追擊,  而是要徹底摧毀Roberts-Smith, 因為不確定最後當局會否搜集到足夠證據刑事檢控他, 這本書已先把他判罪, 完全不理會會否構成pre-trial prejudice。一個不可一世, 道貌岸然, 以欺凌別人為樂的國家英雄, 反轉豬肚都是屎。