Media Room: Defence Speech

ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INQUIRY FINDINGS INTO OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS IN AFGHANISTAN IN 2007

 

Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie announces the findings at a media conference at Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT

 

E&OE

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

Firstly, we want to advise you of the outcomes of the three inquiry reports into ADF deaths in Afghanistan in October and November last year.

 

Secondly, we want to advise you of the outcomes of the inquiry conducted into Afghanistan civilian deaths during the 23 November search and clearance operation in which Private Luke Worsley was killed.

 

And thirdly, we wish to advise you of the outcomes of the inquiry conducted into allegations of mistreatment of a local national during the same 23 November search and clearance operation.

 

Before I discuss the combat deaths, let me say a few words on the conduct of inquiries in these circumstances.

 

The ADF conducts inquiries principally to inform internal decision-making. The ability of ADF commanders to appoint internal administrative inquiries, and obtain timely information on these incidents, is vital for the safety and reputation of our people and the maintenance of our capability.

 

The Chief of the Defence Force initiated each of the inquiries. The inquiries into the death of Sergeant Locke and Trooper Pearce were led by a Reserve officer, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Durward who, in his civil capacity, is a Senior Counsel at law.

 

Lieutenant Colonel Durward was assisted by two assistant inquiry officers, Colonel Peter Short, a regular army infantry officer with considerable command and operational experience, and Colonel Gary Hevey, an Army Reserve legal officer.

 

The inquiry into the death of Private Worsley was led by Colonel Peter Short. Colonel Short, Colonel Hevey and Lieutenant Colonel Durward are very well suited to these inquiry tasks. And I express my full confidence in the thoroughness of their efforts and the quality of their reports.

 

Let me now deal with the inquiries into the combat deaths of Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke and Private Luke Worsley.

 

Trooper Pearce was killed on 8 October 2007 when the Australian Light Armoured Vehicle, or ASLAV he was driving struck an improvised explosive device which was placed by Taliban extremists.

 

In the report, you will note that the investigating officer found that Trooper Pearce was suitably trained, prepared and equipped to operate his ASLAV in a high threat environment.

 

The ASLAV in which Trooper Pearce was killed, and another soldier wounded, is a suitable vehicle for the role and function in which it is employed.

 

The type of improvised explosive device used was specifically placed by Taliban extremists to target military vehicles transiting the area.

           

Importantly, the investigating officer found no evidence of collusion or prior knowledge of the IED's location by Afghan national security forces.

 

Sergeant Locke was killed on 25 October 2007 by a single gunshot wound during a combat engagement with a prepared enemy.

 

In this report, you will note that Sergeant Locke's combat awareness, leadership and battle cunning are assessed as playing a major role in preventing further casualties on the day of the incident.

 

Sergeant Locke's decision not to wear ballistic plates within his body armour ensemble was appropriate, given the role and tasks of his patrol at the time.

 

The investigating officer concluded that given the location of Sergeant Locke's wound, ballistic armour plates would probably not have prevented his death.

 

The investigating officer found some discrepancy in the post mortem procedures. These discrepancies result from a lack of understanding of the established procedures, rather than anything untoward.

 

The investigating officer also notes that the same personnel employed the correct procedures in a subsequent combat death.

Private Worsley was killed on 23 November by a single gunshot wound in an engagement with an enemy machine gunner while entering a village compound in the early hours of the morning.

 

In the report, you will note Private Worsley's actions in identifying a significant threat, informing his team mates and engaging in a threat are assessed as a major… as playing a major role in preventing further Australian casualties during the incident.

 

Private Worsley and the remainder of his commando team displayed remarkable adherence to their rules of engagement in a protracted, complex and highly dangerous environment.

 

As tragic as these combat deaths are, they are a consequence of our participation in armed conflict. It was the view of the inquiry officers that the combat circumstances in which the three soldiers died was such that a more detailed commission of inquiry is not warranted.

 

All three men were co… were killed while conducting authorised combat operations.

 

The Chief of the Defence Force has endorsed this recommendation of the inquiry officers, and in accordance with the Defence inquiry regulations, the minister has agreed that a commission of inquiry into these deaths is not required.

 

We will be releasing redacted versions of the inquiry reports into the deaths of Sergeant Locke and Private Worsley, and the allegation of mistreatment onto the Defence website today.

 

As a courtesy to Trooper Pearce's family, we will withhold publication of the inquiry report into his death until the family have been able to review the report. We expect this to occur later this week.

 

We have offered copies of the reports to the respective state coroners to assist them with any further inquiries that they may choose to undertake. We have also briefed the units involved of the inquiry outcomes before today's public release.

 

Our thoughts today rest with the families of Trooper Pearce, Sergeant Locke and Private Worsley. Their loved ones have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our nation. The families, like us, could not be more proud of these three fabulous Australian soldiers.

 

Let me now turn from our own combat deaths to report - to the report into Afghan civilian deaths and the allegations of mistreatment of an Afghan national during the engagement on 23 November.

 

In the early hours of this day, Australian Special Forces commenced clearing a series of compounds. During the next few hours, they engaged and killed a number of enemy combatants, some of whom had been positively identified as local Taliban commanders.

 

A quantity of weapons, ammunition and equipment was captured by the Australian Special Forces. A number of persons were also detained.

 

On the following day - the 24 of November - an Afghan village elder made the following allegations: Firstly that there were no Taliban present at the site of the operation, but only innocent local civilians.

 

Secondly, that eight non-combatants were killed by Australian forces, and Australian forces mistreated the village elder, the claimant, during the conduct of the operation.

 

We take these allegations very seriously, and as a result, a team led by Colonel Peter Short was appointed to investigate them.

 

Colonel Short interviewed over 20 witnesses, including Australian special operations soldiers, International Security Assistance Force members, and the person who made the allegations.

 

The inquiry officer found that the allegations simply did not stand up to the scrutiny of facts surrounding the action.

 

I'll briefly discuss some of the details relating to each allegation.

 

The allegation that no Taliban extremists were present in the village is not borne out by the investigation or the protracted battle that occurred on the 23 of November.

 

The inquiry report found that the commandos were engaged by a highly aggressive, well armed force, displaying significant tactical skill.

 

Their actions were consistent with that of an organised, equipped, coordinated, and determined militant force.

 

The enemy responded quickly, with hostile intent, and continued to engage Australian forces from multiple locations in a coordinated way.

In fact, three of the dead at the scene were subsequently identified as local Taliban extremist commanders, known to control groups of fighters in the region.

 

Let me now turn to the death of non-combatants.

 

You are aware from our previous advice that three civilians - two females and an infant child - were killed during the operation.

 

It has since been revealed that one of the deceased females was positively identified firing an AK-47 assault rifle at our forces during the engagement; and was therefore re-categorised as an enemy combatant.

 

Defence publicly released this fact on the 7 of November[1], during a follow-up media inquiry into Private Worsley's death.

 

It's also been determined that the deceased child was in one of the rooms from which two male and one female combatant were engaging Australian forces with AK-47 fire.

 

That said, the death of civilians and non-combatants during any conflict is highly regrettable.

 

Our troops take all reasonable steps to ensure that engagement of Taliban extremists does not put the lives of civilians or non-combatants in jeopardy.

 

It should be noted however that Taliban tactics routinely use human shields and intimidation which does put the lives of civilians and our troops at risk.

 

I am proud to say that despite the significant threat confronting our troops, from multiple, covered Taliban positions, they reacted with great discipline, professionalism, and in accordance with their rules of engagement.

 

It is clear that during this engagement the enemy chose to ignore commands to lie down - including commands in their own language - they adopted threatening positions towards and ultimately engaged Australian troops; and that the death of civilians during this action is therefore an unfortunate consequence of the enemy's choice to engage ISAF troops from locations occupied by non-combatants.

 

Let me now briefly turn to an allegation of mistreatment by a village elder.

 

The inquiry found that contrary to his allegation, proper consideration was given to the welfare of detainees, their, and their protection from ongoing small arms fire during the engagement.

 

In fact, the troops involved put themselves at considerable risk to ensure the safety of the detainees.

 

It is also notable that the village elder making the allegation subsequently withdrew it, agreeing that he was treated appropriately, given the dire circumstances.

 

In summary, this operation was a well planned and executed military activity, characterised by highly effective leadership, courage, teamwork, and the proper adherence to the rules of engagement at all times - rules of engagement that protected our troops.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, three of the four inquiry reports will be available for your perusal on the Defence website later this morning. In fact I think there are hard copies for those who need them, as we finish here this morning.

 

The report in relation to the death of trooper Pearce will be available later this week.

 

I'm now happy to take your questions.

 

QUESTION:

…the post mortem into Sergeant Locke, and you said there were discrepancies. What, what specifically did they relate to?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

It was…

 

QUESTION: 

[Indistinct].

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

Sorry, it was an issue of the following; the correct military administrative procedures for the handling of bodies - the cleaning of the body, and clothing, etcetera, that was not adhered to.

 

And, as I said, in a subsequent death - Private Worsley's - the fact that we had taken action to address that shortcoming with the group of soldiers was proof to be effective in that it was handled properly at that stage.

 

QUESTION: 

Is it fair to say sir that no wrongdoing has been found on the part of any Australian soldier in any of these incidents? And if that is what you are saying to us, are there any lessons out of all of this for our soldiers in the field? And if so, what are they?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

I think it is true to say here in this stage that we, we haven't found anything untoward in the actions of our soldiers in these circumstances.

 

There are lessons that can be learnt. I think the mortuary affairs one, was one that needed to be learnt, and was learnt.

 

I think that the issue of civilians and non-combatants is one that we learnt quite a long time ago, and in fact there is a, a fairly strong record of our troops calling off operations at times where they couldn't be sure that civilians wouldn't be caught up in the, in the resulting melee.

 

And I think that the constant review of our rules of procedure and detainee management policies, actually protect us rather than hinder us in this degree.

 

So, I think that our troops have done well. We paid with three lives in that period of time, and one subsequently. But the investigations into the first three combat deaths, and this incident, indicate that our procedures and the conduct of our people is as we would hope as a nation they might be.

 

QUESTION: 

You say they're under constant review, but, specifically from that incident on the 23 of November, have there been any changes to tactics, procedures, rules of engagement, or even the gathering of intelligence, that you can point to?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

No. I don't think that there is anything in hindsight in that regard that we need to change at the present time.

 

QUESTION: 

You've talked about Sergeant Locke and Private Worsley's actions, both in preventing other people getting wounded or killed. Is there any talk about any decorations for them?

 

 

 

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

That's a matter for the chain of command. We have a well established procedure for people recommending awards, and that certainly hasn't bubbled to the top yet. It's up to the commanders in the field to make those recommendations should they see fit.

 

QUESTION: 

Could you explain exactly how the woman and the infant were killed, and was that her child, the age of the mother and the age of the baby?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

Certainly the two females and infant, one of the females was certainly shot by our people. She was identified at a window firing an AK-47 as a combatant. It was quite close range, and so identification of who was firing and what they looked like was not a difficulty for us. Despite the fact that it was night, our night vision devices and proximity gave us that.

 

The baby and the second woman killed, we're not absolutely sure of what was the cause of death. In that regard, local custom comes very quickly and collects the bodies and buries them with significant haste.

 

You will see from the report that when soldiers started to clear the village, they discovered the baby in one of the rooms where there had been combat. At that time, the baby was crying. The soldiers who cleared the room picked the child up. There was no evidence of a wound or blood or any of that sort of thing in the clothing that the child was wrapped in.

 

The soldier placed the baby out of the road in the room so that it was out of harm's way, but when they came back to do the following - the final clearance of the building before they left, it was clear that the baby had died. So we're not sure of what the circumstances were in the baby's death.

 

QUESTION: 

Will the allegations take into account the detainees [inaudible].

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

We take allegations into any abuse or abuse of power by our people very seriously. You will have heard already the Chief of the Defence Force saying that we're formally investigating that process. An investigating team has just arrived in the Middle East to do that.

 

We're no different to other ISAF nations in that regard. For every allegation that's made against us, there is an immediate and formal investigative response.

 

And I would just like to say that the policy that we have about detainee management, the rules of engagement that we have, rather than them being a hindrance to our operations, as we do these investigations we find that actually they protect our troops and our reputation.

 

And so we're simply looking for adherence to those rules because if we adhere to them, then people get treated with due respect. We don't over-use our power, and our reputation stays as it is internationally, which is our troops being regarded in a very good light for their professionalism and conduct.

 

QUESTION: 

What was the allegation?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

That we had detained a number of people, we had set dogs on them, and we had handed them over to Dutch authorities after that abuse.

 

The point that the Chief of the Defence Force was making is that there are two processes of investigation here. One is the commanders on the ground's initial quick reaction investigation, and then the more formal one.

 

The results of the quick reaction investigation in this case would indicate that times and dates and allegations simply don't stack up.

 

And I would like to make the point here that we see a growing trend of Taliban activity here of whenever detainees are taken, to make allegations that they have been mistreated.

 

The net effect of that is that all law-abiding nations, and particularly the ISAF countries that you see over there, always take that seriously and always go into an investigation. And so in some regards, by making these allegations, they're causing us considerable administrative burden.

 

In our case, it's worth going through that burden because our reputation is hard fought, hard won. People pay their lives for it. And if we investigate it and can prove that the allegations were unfounded, then that's good for us and the effort that we've gone to investigate it has been worthwhile.

 

QUESTION: 

So you believe that the allegations are a Taliban military tactic?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

I certainly think that there's a trend that would suggest that, yes. And the trend is also to not necessarily to complain to the nation involved. So the trend would be rather to complain to the Dutch that Australians had mistreated detainees before they were handed over or complain to the Australians that the Dutch had mistreated, and this happens throughout the country. So it's better to go to a third nation and make the allegation because then international reputations guarantee that you will investigate the incident.

 

QUESTION: 

Sir, the investigation into Trooper David Pearce, has it shed any light to the question of the source and sophistication of the IED that killed him? And if not, have you shed any light on what we know about the explosive device in that case and where it might have come from?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:    

Its origin I'm not certain of. We know from the exploitation of the site that it was an anti-tank mine that was used. Anti-tank mines are typically a large cylindrical bit of explosive with a tungsten carbide shaped charge in them designed to break through the belly armour of a tank.

 

In this case, the initiation was caused by the vehicle driving over a pressure plate where electrical connections are made. Those electrical connections set off the anti-tank mine. The shaped charge pierced the bottom of the ASLAV in which we were driving.

 

So we know the circumstances. Where the mine came from, how long it had been there, I mean, the country's awash with minefields, those sorts of things, have been since the Soviet era, and so those sorts of natural resources are fairly easy to get. And the level of sophistication for the initiation set in this case is pretty rudimentary.

 

So that's about as much as we can take from it.

 

QUESTION: 

Sir, with the Sergeant Locke case, are you able to explain what sort of judgements or discretion are involved in decisions not to wear the armour plating? Are there any guidelines to commanders, or is it purely an individual decision? If so, these are the fittest and finest, why can't they wear that as a matter of routine?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

You will find that as a matter of routine, we do. But if you haven't experienced the weight of our combat body armour, perhaps we can set up a little demonstration for you in that regard. And so that when you come to those types of operations that require absolute agility, speed of manoeuvre and all the rest of it, then we allow the commanders on the ground to make a choice of whether or not wearing body armour, which gives them a degree of protection, actually challenges other elements of protection.

 

And in this case, Sergeant Locke took a decision that we think was an appropriate decision to make under the circumstances, based on the agility, speed of manoeuvre that was necessary for what they were trying to do.

 

MALE SPEAKER:

Ladies and gentlemen, only two more questions, please.

 

QUESTION: 

Can you just clarify a little bit better for me with the death of the baby and the female again, how that came about? They were clearing what, a mud hut, the Australian soldiers were clearing a mud hut and found a baby lying inside, placed it outside and it died later?

 

QUESTION: 

How were they related?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

Sorry, I'm uncertain as to their relationships. Yes, they were inside a mud hut inside a compound, and inside a hut where combat had been taking place, both initially from Taliban from within the facility out against our soldiers, and then of course on the receiving end from the return of fire from our soldiers into the facility.

 

QUESTION: 

How many other instances have there been where civilians have been killed or injured by Australians?

 

KEN GILLESPIE:

I'm not too sure that we've had any other results where we've had that effect. And really, that's one of the reasons why we've come forward here in such a plain and open way, to let the people know that in this particular circumstances, people that we couldn't positively identify as combatants had been killed.

 

The nature of the operations and the return of fire sometimes and the need for our own protection to get out quickly is the reason for my hesitancy in saying no others have.

 

But the nature of the country is that if we deal with citizens, they very quickly let us know if anything untoward has gone on in our actions, and that hasn't been the case. So I believe that this is the first occasion.

 

Thank you for your time.