Landmark Ruling Upheld by Federal Court
Australia’s most decorated living soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, has lost his appeal against a landmark defamation ruling that found he committed war crimes during his service in Afghanistan. The Federal Court judges unanimously upheld the 2023 judgement which determined allegations that Roberts-Smith murdered four unarmed Afghan men were substantially true.
Background to the Case
Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient and former special forces corporal, sued three major Australian newspapers — The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times — over articles published in 2018 that accused him of serious misconduct during his deployment between 2009 and 2012. The articles alleged war crimes, including the unlawful killing of civilians and bullying within the military ranks.
Appeal Arguments and Court Decision
The appeal, which some described as Australia’s “trial of the century,” focused on claims that the original judge failed to give enough weight to Roberts-Smith’s presumption of innocence and that the journalists unlawfully obtained information. However, the three-judge panel rejected these arguments, stating the evidence was “sufficiently cogent” to support the findings.
Justice Antony Besanko’s original judgement found that Roberts-Smith lied to cover up his misconduct and threatened witnesses. However, not all allegations, such as punching his lover or committing two other murders, were proven to the civil standard.
Reactions and Next Steps
Roberts-Smith maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal to the High Court of Australia “immediately.” Meanwhile, investigative journalist Nick McKenzie, whose work was central to the case, called the ruling an “emphatic win” and called for criminal accountability.
This case marks the first time an Australian court has legally assessed claims of war crimes by its forces, raising significant questions about military conduct and accountability.
Conclusion
The Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case continues to resonate throughout Australia, highlighting the tension between national heroism and serious allegations of misconduct. As the legal process moves toward the High Court, the case remains a pivotal moment in Australian military and legal history.
For further insights on military accountability reforms in Australia, visit our article on Australia’s Military Legal Reforms and Accountability.
They said “the evidence was sufficiently cogent to support the findings that the appellant murdered four Afghan men”.
“To the extent that we have discerned error in the reasons of the primary judge, the errors were inconsequential,” they added.
They also ordered Mr Roberts-Smith to pay the newspapers’ legal costs.
In a statement, Mr McKenzie called the ruling an “emphatic win”.
He thanked the SAS soldiers who “fought for the Australian public to learn the truth”, and paid tribute to the Afghan “victims of [Mr] Roberts-Smith”.
“It should not be left to journalists and brave soldiers to stand up to a war criminal,” he said. “Australian authorities must hold Ben Roberts-Smith accountable before our criminal justice system.”
Sources:The Age