The woman, known only as Person 17, had alleged McKenzie was passing privileged information about Roberts-Smith’s legal strategy when she took to the stand during the former soldier’s defamation action against McKenzie, The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald.

Roberts-Smith lost the defamation proceedings and has now sought to use the recording to prove there was a miscarriage of justice.

“They’re briefing us on his legal strategy in respect of you … the reason I told you that was to say we got this and they’re not going [to be] hostile towards you, despite your worst fears, and I have told you that so many times as well,” McKenzie, who sounded frustrated, said.

On Roberts-Smith’s allegation, the “they” who briefed McKenzie was Danielle Scott, a friend of his ex-wife, Emma Roberts. At the crux of the interlocutory hearing was a claim the information had been obtained from Roberts-Smith’s email account by Ms Roberts.

The lawyers for the former soldier said the specific material was covered under legal professional privilege and had been accessed unlawfully. McKenzie denied knowing it was covered under privilege.

VIEW ALL

When pressed on whether he turned his mind to whether the information was covered under privilege, McKenzie said he did not because Scott was “best friends” with Ms Roberts and the two had been “gossiping”.

“I think it’s a natural conclusion when, in this circumstances, when the best friend of this person calls me seeking to give me information her best mate is telling her, that’s natural,” McKenzie said.

“Why would anyone think this is legally privileged, this is hearsay from the best friend of a wife who has since become estranged.”

Counsel for the media parties, John Sheahan KC, said the “whole theory upon which this case is brought” had overlooked three possibilities, including whether documents existed at all and if the information existed outside of Roberts-Smith’s email account.

Sheahan also supported McKenzie’s submission that Scott and Ms Roberts “had a very close relationship as friends” and pointed to evidence at trial that Roberts-Smith’s ex-wife had directed her friend to “do things with the email account for her”.

Appearing for Roberts-Smith, Arthur Moses SC has asked the full bench to reject McKenzie “as a witness of credit”.

On Moses’ submission, McKenzie “has come to this court to lie and deceive this court about the admissions that are plain in his own words … and give evidence that the court should reject”.

Moses specifically referred to a moment in the back half of McKenzie’s cross-examination, in which the reporter said he was surprised to learn that Person 17 intended to make a complaint against him, and had gone so far as to draft a statement of claim.

McKenzie was then taken to a letter written to Person 17 by MinterEllison, which included a reference to the recorded call.

Asked whether he gave instructions for the letter to be sent, McKenzie replied: “I can’t recall, there were four or five legal exchanges. I can’t recall if I was shown each one. I don’t recall this letter, I accept I would have been one of the clients, being Nine.”

Moses said in closing submissions: “How dare he.”

“How dare he say his lawyers wrote a letter on his behalf … but he doesn’t know where they got [the information] from, how dare he. There he is in the witness box giving answers to the court as if this court is going to buy this nonsense. It’s rubbish.”

Moses also took issue with the media parties’ apparent failure to call evidence from Scott or Ms Roberts to “bolster the bare denials” and what he said were “really weird explanations” given by McKenzie.

The court has reserved its decision.