Heston Russell case EXCLUSIVE: The staggering sum of YOUR money the ABC could be forced to pay ex-commando – as reporter Mark Willacy’s words come back to haunt him

An ex-commander’s victory against the ABC could cost taxpayers up to $3.5 million in legal fees, on top of the nearly $400,000 in damages the national broadcaster must pay out.

Heston Russell successfully sued the ABC for defamation over stories published in late 2021 claiming his Australian platoon was under investigation for its operations in the Middle East.

The stories Russell claims defamed him, written and produced by investigative journalists Mark Willacy and Josh Robertson, were broadcast on television, radio and online in October 2020 and over a year later on November 19, 2021.

The TV report and two online articles included allegations by a US Marine that he indirectly witnessed Australian soldiers executing a tied up prisoner in Afghanistan in 2012.

The Federal Court will consider the issue of legal costs in the case on October 24 and whether the ABC will be ordered to pay its costs on an indemnity basis – or to compensate Russell for his loss.

Daily Mail Australia understands the digger’s legal costs are in the order of $1.5 million. Before the case went to trial, Russell offered to settle his case for a much lower amount – believed to be around $99,000.

Legal sources have confirmed that, taking into account the costs of three barristers and five barristers, the ABC’s legal costs are likely to be higher than those of Russell.

Taking into account Monday’s ruling by Federal Court Judge Michael Lee and an interest rate of 3 percent, taxpayers may have to pay a bill of almost $3.5 million as a result of the lawsuit.

Speaking to 2GB host Ben Fordham in court on Tuesday morning after his victory, the comments Willacy made during his acceptance speech for the 2020 Gold Walkley award came back to haunt him.

“There’s this idea that we’re making things up and we’re not… yeah, come after me… if I’ve made a mistake or if I’ve been loose with my journalism, come after me. I welcome it.’ he said.

Heston said: ‘The flippancy and arrogance of those statements… that piece absolutely infuriates me. And that was with the Walkleys.’

ABC News CEO Justin Stevens passionately defended Mark Willacy’s journalism during the Senate estimates hearing in May.

‘His journalism is beyond dispute. “He has done some of the most important research in this country,” he said.

“He’s a fantastic journalist, and I think it’s important that, beyond the specifics of legal cases, his journalism has no reputation. The law on defamation can sometimes get in the way of good public interest journalism.’

In contrast, Justice Lee delivered a scathing dismissal of the ABC’s public interest defense, stating that: ‘Mr Willacy… had become defensive about any criticism of the October article and felt that such criticism was emblematic of a broader culture war attack on all other war crimes. reporting from ABC Investigations,”

He also criticized the ABC Investigations team for becoming defensive when ABC’s own Media Watch program began investigating their reporting, rather than “thinking maturely about whether the reporting was fair.”

During a nine-day trial in July and August, the court was told the allegations came from a US Marine called ‘Josh’, who contacted Mr Willacy about his time in Afghanistan working with Australian soldiers.

In an email to Mr Willacy, ‘Josh’ said he was not a witness but heard a ‘bang’ on the radio which he thought was a gunshot.

Mr Russell was present at Sydney’s Federal Court building in Queen’s Square for every minute of the trial, sitting at the back of the court as his legal team described the “violation” he felt when the articles were published.

During the trial, Mr Russell’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, urged the judge to reject the ABC’s defense of public interest.

“There is no public interest in being lied to by the ABC about a serious allegation of murder against a group of soldiers who were not given the opportunity to even respond,” she told the court.

Ms Chrysanthou said there was a “significant amount of evidence” showing the articles in question were a PR exercise and “ego protection” for Mr Willacy.

She told the court the articles were a “vindication of his original story.”

During the trial, Judge Lee said the evidence of ABC witnesses, including journalist Mark Willacy, showed “a very high sense of defensiveness, of circling the wagons against criticism and the level of suspicion.”

The judge previously ruled that the stories contained ten defamatory allegations, but it was up to the ABC to prove there was a ‘public interest’ in publishing them.

Ms Chrysanthou said the submissions from both sides were further apart than ‘two ships in the night’.

“There is one ship, let’s call it Heston, that glides across the seas of legal principle and the ocean of factual evidence that Your Honor has heard,” she said.

“Then there is the ABC ship, which is stuck on the rocks of complete self-deception, hypocrisy and misrepresentation of the relevant law.”

She told the court that a key issue in the case was that the ABC ‘does not appear to understand the concept of admission and evasion’ as the broadcaster claims they accused Mr Russell of the allegations ‘completely unintentionally’.

Although the articles contained a denial by Mr Russell, he claimed that the use of his name and photo implied that he was involved in the death of an Afghan prisoner.

Meanwhile, Nicholas Owens SC, representing the ABC, argued that public interest reporting should not be ‘subject to corroboration requirements’.

“The applicant essentially wants to hold journalists to a higher standard… because corroboration requirements are now really a fairly small part of the criminal law,” Mr Owens argued.

‘To suggest that a journalist should confirm things would, we say, be to hold them to a completely unrealistic standard.’