 Welcome to Consortium News. This is Cathy Vogan reporting on day three of the David McBride trial, which is taking place at the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court in Canberra. The judge, in the case of Australian military whistleblower David McBride, dealt the defendant a serious blow on Wednesday when he ruled against a public interest defence during the trial. Quote, I will instruct the jury that there is no aspect of duty that allows the accused to act in the public interest contrary to a lawful order, just as David Mossop told the court. Outside the courtroom during a break McBride told the press, it looks like I will be convicted and will go to jail. McBride's lawyers had asked that the case be moved at this stage to a three judge court of appeal panel to lessen court costs for McBride and on grounds that Mossop could not rely on any clear authority regarding the concept of duty. But Mossop denied the request. On hearing Wednesday's decision and subsequent discussion about public interest immunity, it became clear to the defence that intended redactions within classified documents would impede McBride from developing his defence. Stephen Odgers, McBride's chief counsel, objected to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence, referring the court to the Australian Capital Territory Evidence Act of 1995. He said, evidence that is relevant to a proceeding is admissible to a proceeding. He further specified that some of the more sensitive documents could be viewed in a closed court. Judge Mossop has allowed a hearing in the Court of Appeal on this matter, which will take place at 10am Thursday before a different judge, possibly the Chief Justice. Jury selection that had been scheduled for Thursday has been pushed back to Monday morning should the case go ahead. It is possible the Court of Appeal may interrupt that schedule. Another quote from David. I thought I would go to jail and the case hopefully goes to the High Court so it rules that there is a duty to serve the public interest. McBride told reporters, I will be waiting in jail for this to happen. McBride, who served two terms in Afghanistan as a lawyer with the Australian Defence Force ADF, has been charged in a five-count indictment for a trial that is expected to last three weeks, much of which is expected to be in a closed or restricted courtroom environment. Concerns were expressed on Wednesday by Andrew Berger KC for the prosecution about information in certain classified documents relating to Australia's international partners. Quote, it is a nuanced field, the very important relationship with Australia's foreign partners. The public interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the interest of open justice. The prosecution has argued since Monday that McBride broke laws of military discipline by leaking to the Australian media. McBride's lawyers conceded in court that he indeed broke such regulations but that he had a duty to the nation that superseded military discipline. His leaks to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation revealed murders of unarmed Afghans by Australian soldiers. Though 39 murders were identified by a government investigation, so far only one Australian soldier has been charged with murder in Afghanistan. The pre-trial debate was a battle between opposing ideas of the military's role in society. Is it to serve the entire community's interests or is it a law unto itself? The judge's decisions on Wednesday regarding his instructions to the jury has decided that battle in the government's favour, apparently denying that any duty outside of following orders even exists. He says any duty contrary to law would not be able to be discharged and could not readily be described as a duty at all. Mossup said he would instruct the jury that a soldier's oath to the sovereign does not mean he can violate a lawful order to serve the public's cause. The defence had argued that since the sovereign's duty is to the public, it follows that a soldier's oath to the king also meant serving the public. Left unmentioned in the courtroom during the first three days, the 39 murdered unarmed Afghan civilians and no response to the defences mentioned yesterday of Nuremberg. So that would appear to be that, except what does this mean? David McBride has just tweeted a couple of hours ago and he says, the prosecutors in my case having yesterday claimed there were absolutely no exceptions to following orders under any circumstances at all have realised that this will be successfully appealed, so are backtracking. If that wasn't their belief, why did they say it was? Now, this has happened after we were informed that there was going to be the appeal tomorrow morning at 10am. So Consortium News is going to get there bright and early to see what's going on here. Something is afoot and you should stay tuned. This is Cathy Vogan for Consortium News, back soon. So with the public's continuing support of Consortium News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.