One of the most significant moments in Australian military history unfolded without fanfare on a tarmac at Sydney airport, when Ben Roberts-Smith was calmly escorted off a plane and into a waiting police car. The country's most-decorated living soldier and the most famous of his generation, Roberts-Smith was on Tuesday charged with five counts of the war crime of murder.
It follows a high-profile civil defamation case, which three years ago found that the former Special Air Service (SAS) corporal and Victoria Cross recipient had unlawfully killed several unarmed Afghan detainees. Roberts-Smith, who left the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in 2013, denies all wrongdoing and says the allegations are egregious and driven by spiteful and jealous peers.
His case – now set to be tested to a higher, criminal standard – has become the face of Australia's reckoning over the country's alleged conduct in Afghanistan, which has cast a pall over its much-mythologised military legacy.
For Roberts-Smith to now be charged with war crimes - and not just one, but multiple war crimes - is a very significant cultural and social moment for a country that, for much of its history… has placed a lot of store in the exploits and contributions of the members of its defence forces, Professor Donald Rothwell told the BBC.
But the prosecution of such a highly-decorated veteran is also an extraordinary moment for the globe. We've never seen this before, says Deane-Peter Baker, a special forces ethics scholar.
Roberts-Smith's arrest was the culmination of a five-year investigation by a special watchdog set up after a landmark inquiry into allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. The 2020 Brereton Report found credible evidence that elite soldiers unlawfully killed 39 people, recommending 19 current or former ADF members be investigated.
Roberts-Smith's case poses an array of other challenges for the legal system, as the judicial process in Australia faces scrutiny regarding the complexities of war crimes trials. This unprecedented accountability process reflects a significant shift in public and institutional attitudes toward military ethics and the responsibilities of soldiers in combat.
Despite the potential implications for Australia’s military identity, some argue that this moment reinforces a commitment to ethics and the rule of law, echoing sentiments that accountability must be upheld, regardless of the individual in question.
It follows a high-profile civil defamation case, which three years ago found that the former Special Air Service (SAS) corporal and Victoria Cross recipient had unlawfully killed several unarmed Afghan detainees. Roberts-Smith, who left the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in 2013, denies all wrongdoing and says the allegations are egregious and driven by spiteful and jealous peers.
His case – now set to be tested to a higher, criminal standard – has become the face of Australia's reckoning over the country's alleged conduct in Afghanistan, which has cast a pall over its much-mythologised military legacy.
For Roberts-Smith to now be charged with war crimes - and not just one, but multiple war crimes - is a very significant cultural and social moment for a country that, for much of its history… has placed a lot of store in the exploits and contributions of the members of its defence forces, Professor Donald Rothwell told the BBC.
But the prosecution of such a highly-decorated veteran is also an extraordinary moment for the globe. We've never seen this before, says Deane-Peter Baker, a special forces ethics scholar.
Roberts-Smith's arrest was the culmination of a five-year investigation by a special watchdog set up after a landmark inquiry into allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. The 2020 Brereton Report found credible evidence that elite soldiers unlawfully killed 39 people, recommending 19 current or former ADF members be investigated.
Roberts-Smith's case poses an array of other challenges for the legal system, as the judicial process in Australia faces scrutiny regarding the complexities of war crimes trials. This unprecedented accountability process reflects a significant shift in public and institutional attitudes toward military ethics and the responsibilities of soldiers in combat.
Despite the potential implications for Australia’s military identity, some argue that this moment reinforces a commitment to ethics and the rule of law, echoing sentiments that accountability must be upheld, regardless of the individual in question.
