Magistrate lashes CDPP on war crime charge delay: ‘It’s only been thirteen years’

The first Australian soldier charged with a war crime has faced another delay in being committed to stand trial, which a local court magistrate has slammed as ‘unsatisfactory’.

Oliver Schulz arrives at the Downing Centre for one day of his committal hearing. Picture: Nikki Short

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The first Australian soldier charged with a war crime has faced another delay in being committed to stand trial, which a local court magistrate has slammed as “unsatisfactory”.

Oliver Schulz was charged with the war crime of murder after helmet-cam footage was aired on the ABC in 2020 showing the former SAS trooper allegedly shooting local man Dad Mohammad three times while on rotation in Afghanistan in 2012.

That was 855 days ago.

The matter was set to be committed to the Supreme Court for trial on Tuesday but a legal representative for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions told a court the Attorney-General’s Department had raised a “procedural issue” overnight.

While CDPP lawyer Chelsea Brain said she was “limited” to what she could say due to legal privilege, she said the issue related to “the authorisation to prosecute the matter”.

“We need to investigate and ensure all of the ducks are in a row procedurally before the matter is taken out of this court into the Supreme Court,” she said.

Magistrate Greg Grogin called the delay “unsatisfactory”.

“It’s only been thirteen years since the alleged offence and we’ve now been at committal for many, many months and something arose last night, really?”

He said it would not “wash” if another “irregularity arose overnight” the next time it came to court to be committed for trial.

Mr Schulz’ lawyer Karen Espiner said all her client could do was “begrudgingly consent” to another adjournment.

Over 11 days in April and May, Mr Schulz faced a committal hearing where former SAS colleagues, including a couple who had witnessed the alleged events unfold in a village wheat field in Afghanistan, were asked what they remembered about that day.

An extended version of the dog handler’s helmet-cam footage, was played multiple times, stopped and started, and picked apart by prosecutors. The video shows the troop on a Black Hawk helicopter before it lands, and the soldiers run about 50m across a wheat field.

The purpose of the mission was to kill or capture “Objective Young Akira”, the court heard repeatedly. The troop enters some farmland, lined with aqueducts, and moves along a compound of interest. Mr Schulz points to some Black Hawks and says “FAMs (fighting-age males) over there”.

The dog handler and Mr Schulz move towards an open field and come across Mohammad, who is trying to fight off the dog who ran ahead. Mr Schulz points his gun at Mohammad as the dog is called back, and ­Mohammad ends up on his back.

Mr Schulz looks around and asks three times variations of whether he should “drop this c..t” before firing three shots at ­Mohammad.

While the footage is at the ­centre of the prosecution case, whether it paints the full picture will likely be a point of contention at trial.