In his submission to the High Court on behalf of senator Malcolm Roberts, barrister Robert Newlinds argued that "senator Roberts honestly but wrongly believed that he had done everything he could to renounce any British citizenship".
Roberts and six other politicians are currently before the Hight Court over whether they can remain in parliament or should be disqualified under Section 44 of the Australian Constitution, on the grounds that they were dual citizens, or eligible for dual citizenship, at the time of the last federal election.
The government has argued in a submission published this week that because Roberts, along with former Greens senator Scott Ludlam, knew there was a real prospect they could be dual citizens, they should both be found ineligible.
Roberts was born in India to a Welsh father and an Australian mother. Documents obtained by BuzzFeed News revealed that Roberts had signed a form when he became an Australian citizen at the age of 19 that indicated he was British.
The High Court ruled last week that Roberts was a British citizen when he was elected to parliament.
Contrary to the government's claim, Roberts' submission argues he has the strongest case of all the politicians currently under a citizenship cloud, precisely *because* he believed he could have been a British citizen, while the others were just ignorant.
"Senator Roberts' case is stronger than those who profess ignorance and
thus did nothing. Senator Roberts' actions at the time of nomination
demonstrate he did not want to be a citizen of any other country."
In explaining why Roberts might not have been aware of requirements to properly renounce citizenship, Newlinds sought to downplay the senator's knowledge and experience.
Attempting to renounce his citizenship by sending emails to the wrong addresses was "ineffective", Newlinds said.
There is no mention of Roberts further investigating the proper method to renounce his British citizenship (filling out a form and paying a fee, as required by UK law) before the election, but that wasn't his fault, Newlinds said.
"From the time he sent that email, senator Roberts honestly but wrongly believed that he had done everything he could to renounce any British citizenship he may have had," Newlinds said.
Newlinds has argued that Roberts should be found eligible because he took appropriate steps after he was elected to renounce his citizenship. If the High Court doesn't accept that, then it was a "miscarriage of British law" that resulted in him failing to renounce his citizenship.
Roberts appears to be saying that regardless of whether he was or wasn't a citizen of Britain, he is choosing to believe he was not British, and that's all that should matter.
Roberts and the other six politicians will have their cases heard on October 10.