Top Australian Soldier's War Crimes Defamation Case Dismissed

In a significant legal battle, Australia's most decorated soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, faces the ramifications of a court ruling that found him guilty of committing war crimes.

Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia's highest-decorated living soldier, has suffered a setback as his appeal against a consequential defamation ruling has been dismissed. A Federal Court in 2023 determined that claims made in various media articles regarding Mr. Roberts-Smith's involvement in the murders of four unarmed Afghan individuals were truthful. The former soldier contends that the judge made legal errors in the trial process.

This civil trial represents a landmark moment in Australian history, being the first instance where any court scrutinized allegations of war crimes committed by Australian forces. Following the appeal decision from a panel of three judges, Mr. Roberts-Smith continues to assert his innocence, noting he has not faced any criminal charges that would necessitate a higher standard of proof.

Having parted ways with the defense forces in 2013, Mr. Roberts-Smith had initiated legal action against three Australian newspapers in response to their 2018 reports detailing purported serious misconduct during his deployment in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. At that time, he was hailed as a national hero, having received the Victoria Cross for valor during a conflict with Taliban fighters targeting his Special Air Service (SAS) platoon.

The former special forces corporal claims that the alleged killings either occurred within the bounds of combat legality or did not transpire at all, asserting that media coverage has drastically altered the course of his life. The defamation proceedings, often referred to as “the trial of the century,” spanned over 120 days with reported financial implications reaching up to A$35 million (approximately $22.5 million or £16.9 million).

During the trial, Federal Court Justice Antony Besanko had dismissed Mr. Roberts-Smith’s case against major Australian publications, concluding that it was "substantially true" that he had engaged in the murder of unarmed Afghan civilians as well as intimidating fellow military personnel. While some additional accusations against him were not substantiated to the degree required by civil law, including assault against a partner, the core of the appeal centered on whether Justice Besanko appropriately considered Mr. Roberts-Smith's presumption of innocence. His lawyer, Bret Walker, SC, argued that the evidence obtained by the newspapers did not meet the necessary legal threshold.

As this unfolding story develops, further updates will be made available, ensuring readers remain informed of any new details regarding this contentious case.