A military justice maven in Australia has kindly provided the following information concerning the "rubber chicken" case previously referred to here.
The decision(s) favouring Able Seaman [Rowan Martin] Angre has been published (as of 29 August 2016) by Australian Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal.
The published reasons are effectively a decision of two halves: firstly, the Chief of Navy's application for a stay of the proceeding was refused as its grounds of res judicata and abuse of process failed; secondly, the Tribunal rejected the Chief of Navy's submission opposing Angre’s application to rely on documentary evidence in support of his appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal overruled the in limine objection by the Chief of Navy to the material on which Angre proposes to rely. Angre’s application for leave to appeal out of time has now been fixed to commence on 12 December 2016.
Angre was granted leave to adduce and rely on before the Tribunal the transcript of the oral evidence given and the exhibits tendered before the Chief Judge Advocate sitting as Judge Advocate to the Court Martial convened to sentence the applicant and the parts of the three affidavits, including parts of the affidavit of LIEUT Ross Glover. Angre attacked on his convictions on the ground that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred because his guilty pleas had been induced by various improprieties attributed to his legal advisors and by the alleged failure of the Judge Advocate of the first Court Martial to ensure that he was fully apprised of the consequences of his pleas.
Angre's further application however to amend his grounds of appeal by adding the grounds [contained in the minute dated 1 July 2016] was refused.
The decisions in Angre v Chief of Navy (No 1)  ADFDAT 1, and Angre v Chief of Navy (No 2)  ADFDAT 2, can be viewed here.