McKenzie, The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald were sued by Roberts-Smith over reports he committed war crimes while serving with the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan.

The Federal Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the war crimes occurred. Roberts-Smith launched his appeal shortly afterwards.

During an interlocutory application on Thursday (1 May), the Federal Court was told of an 85-second recording of a conversation between McKenzie and a former romantic partner of Roberts-Smith – known as Person 17 – that was said to have occurred during the trial.

In the recording, not yet played to the court, McKenzie said: “They’re actively like briefing us on his legal strategy, in respect of you.”

“We anticipated most of it, one or two things now we know which is helpful. I’ve just breached my f--king ethics.”

VIEW ALL

Most of the day was taken up with legal arguments about whether to allow certain evidence, including the recording.

Nine’s lawyers argued the conversation had been “edited down” to 85 seconds and did not include the beginning or end of the conversation, so the court would only be “dealing with a fragment”.

Counsel added the recording was very likely sent “with a view of causing maximum benefit to the appellant and, very possibly, harm to the second respondent or the respondents generally”.

Arthur Moses SC, appearing for Roberts-Smith, said it should be admitted because it contained “admissions” by McKenzie.

While questioning of McKenzie has begun, Moses’ cross-examination on the recording has been pushed into Friday morning.

In the meantime, McKenzie was questioned on his “desperation” to track down evidence during the trial, but the journalist clarified that while at times there was some “intense anxiety”, sometimes there was not.

Asked whether he had gone to “great lengths” to find evidence, McKenzie said: “I don’t know what you mean by great lengths; I was motivated to find evidence of the truth, yes.”

Referencing an interview McKenzie gave to another journalist, Moses asked whether he had done this because he was “sick to your stomach with worry about being exposed as a fraud and losing your job”.

“Yes, I am naturally a very anxious person, and I was extremely worried we would lose the case at times,” McKenzie said.

Moses also took McKenzie to a 2013 Melbourne Magistrates Court matter, in which he and two colleagues accepted a diversion – but no conviction – for unlawfully accessing a Labor Party voter database.

He asked whether McKenzie used “deceptive methods or subterfuge” to gain unauthorised access to material.

McKenzie said there were circumstances where he did receive material unlawfully from sources and reported on it.

Then asked whether he considered this to be improper, McKenzie said: “It’s a very broad proposition [because] there are instances where it is our job to find information that is hidden.”

The matter is ongoing.