Court martial panel considers verdict after hearing conflicting accounts

The military panel has retired to consider its verdict after a judge’s detailed summing up in the court martial of a senior Navy officer.

The military panel in a Navy court martial has retired to deliberate after hearing a detailed summing up from the judge, who reminded them their verdict must be unanimous and based solely on evidence heard in court.

Judge William Hastings spent much of the morning outlining the competing Crown and defence cases, explaining the legal elements of the charge and the high standard of proof required.

“There are two different accounts of what happened that evening,” he told the panel.

“That is the heart of the matter. [The accused] is on trial here, not [the complainant].”

The accused has pleaded not guilty to a charge of prejudicing service discipline, relating to an alleged off-duty incident during an overseas deployment in 2023.

During the trial, a junior officer alleged they were encouraged to kiss the accused on the cheek in a social setting, describing the moment as “shocking". Judge Hastings reminded the court the complainant accepted they were intoxicated at the time, acknowledged they initially lied to military police, and told the court they downplayed the incident out of fear for their career.

The defence argued those concessions undermined the complainant's credibility, saying their memory of events were "unreliable" and "inconsistent".

The accused rejected the allegation, telling the court they did not encourage the junior officer to kiss them and nothing improper occurred. They said greetings such as hugs or kisses on the cheek were normal in social environments. A senior officer also gave evidence on Monday, saying they were with the accused for most the evening, did not witness the alleged interaction and observed nothing inappropriate.

In his summing up, Judge Hastings reminded the panel the accused does not have to prove their innocence and that the burden of proof remains entirely with the Crown.

“It is not a case of choosing whose account you prefer,” he said.

“The question remains the same – has the Crown proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?”

He directed the panel through a structured question trail, explaining that if the Crown fails to prove any single element of the charge, the only lawful verdict is not guilty.

“There are two different accounts of what happened that evening. That is the heart of the matter," Judge Hastings said.

“The verdict must be unanimous.”