Nine refuses to answer questions over $700k payment to witness in Ben Roberts-Smith war crime case

Nine and its board are still refusing to answer serious questions over a massive hush money payment to a witness in the Ben Roberts-Smith war crimes case that has plunged the network into crisis.

The media company has come under fire after it was revealed it secretly paid $700,000 to stop the woman, known as Person 17, from going public with damaging claims about Nine’s reporter Nick McKenzie.

Confronted by 7NEWS with questions about who signed off on the payment at her Sydney home on Tuesday, Nine chair Catherine West refused to answer, instead running inside and slamming the door.

The rest of the board has also continued to remain silent on the scandal, with the company also trying to gag other media outlets from reporting on the cover-up, issuing legal threats.

Questions sent to each of the other members of the board continue to go unanswered. They include:

• Were you aware that Nine intended to make a $700,000 payment to prevent a key witness from going public against Nick McKenzie in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case?
• Have you signed off on, or been made aware of, any similar payments made to silence individuals connected to the Ben Roberts-Smith proceedings?
• Do you retain confidence in chair Catherine West?

Ms West also refused to say if she still stood by McKenzie’s reporting.

The investigative journalist was hauled into the headlines last month after secret tapes were aired on Sky News in which he claims to have obtained Mr Roberts-Smith’s legal strategy in his defamation fight against Nine.

In the conversation, McKenzie tells Person 17 that Mr Roberts-Smith’s ex-wife Emma Roberts and her friend Danielle Scott had been “actively briefing us on his legal strategy in respect of you” and admits he had “breached my f...ing ethics”.

Mr Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, unsuccessfully sued Nine after it accused him of committing war crimes during his deployments as an SAS soldier in Afghanistan.

An appeal judgment was imminent before the tapes emerged.

And this week, it was revealed that shortly before that appeal hearing was due to start, Person 17 sent a series of explosive emails to Nine executives claiming McKenzie had treated her poorly and obtained the former soldier’s private legal advice.

In her correspondence the woman, alleged by Nine to be a domestic violence survivor, asked McKenzie to protect her from harmful stories being published by the media company’s newspapers, previously known as Fairfax.

Nine then paid the woman $700,000 and made her sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Since the tapes emerged, Nine has now demanded the woman pay that money back, accusing her of breaching the agreement by leaking the information.

However, the woman has denied she is the source of the leaks.

The development prompted Mr Roberts-Smith to make an eleventh-hour attempt to have his appeal reopened in the Federal Court, alleging McKenzie’s “wilful misconduct” has led to him suffering a miscarriage of justice.

As part of the bid, McKenzie was grilled on the stand for five hours last week, where he denied knowledge of legal correspondence between Nine and Person 17.

The judges reserved their decision.