Ben Roberts-Smith, a highly decorated soldier, has become the central figure in a high-profile defamation case that has captivated Australia and shaken its military and media landscape. Accused of war crimes, bullying, and assault, Roberts-Smith took legal action against three prominent Australian newspapers over articles published in 2018 that he claims defamed his character. The trial, which lasted for 110 days and incurred an estimated cost of A$25 million ($16.3 million, £13.2 million), marked the first time in history that an Australian court has examined allegations of war crimes by Australian forces.
The Allegations and Defense
The trial unfolded with allegations against Roberts-Smith, portraying him as a callous man who had broken the moral and legal rules of war, disgracing his country in the process. The newspapers accused Roberts-Smith of involvement in six murders of unarmed prisoners or civilians during his deployments in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. These included pushing a handcuffed farmer off a cliff, shooting a terrified captured teenager in the head, and using a machine gun to kill a captured fighter, subsequently turning his prosthetic leg into a drinking vessel. The newspapers also claimed that Roberts-Smith ordered further killings as initiation rituals for new soldiers.
In response, Roberts-Smith and his legal team vehemently denied the allegations, arguing that they were fabricated by jealous colleagues seeking to tarnish his reputation. They portrayed the journalists as opportunistic, accusing them of publishing the allegations without thoroughly verifying their credibility. Roberts-Smith’s defense team argued that he had always honored the rules of engagement, asserting that five of the alleged killings occurred legally during combat, while the sixth never happened at all.
Ben Roberts-Smith commenced his military career at the age of 18 when he joined the Australian Army in 1996. Initially serving in a rifle company, he later became a section leader in the Direct Fire Support Weapons Platoon. One of his notable deployments with 3 RAR was to East Timor as part of the International Force East Timor in 1999.
In 2003, Roberts-Smith successfully completed the highly demanding selection course and reinforcement cycle of the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR). Roberts-Smith’s operational experience extended to Afghanistan, where he was deployed on six separate occasions. His initial deployments to Afghanistan took place in 2006 and 2007. In 2009, after completing junior leadership training, he was posted to 2 Squadron, initially serving as a patrol 2IC (second-in-command) and later assuming the role of a patrol commander. Roberts-Smith also served on training and assistance teams in Southeast Asia. Subsequent deployments to Afghanistan occurred in 2009, 2010, and 2012.
During his military career, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest military award in Australia. Following his full-time service, Roberts-Smith left the Australian Army in 2013, holding the rank of corporal. However, he continued to serve part-time with the Army Reserve until 2015.
The ongoing defamation trial involving Ben Roberts-Smith has witnessed testimony from several active members of the SASR. These individuals, identified as “Person 1,” “Person 43,” and “Person 10,” have alleged instances of bullying and threats attributed to Roberts-Smith during his time in the military. Among the allegations, Person 1 claimed that Roberts-Smith threatened to shoot him in the back of the head if he did not improve his performance. As a result, Person 1 reported the threat, prompting further alleged threats from Roberts-Smith demanding evidence to substantiate the accusations. The trial continues to explore these claims, contributing to the broader narrative surrounding Roberts-Smith’s conduct and character during his military service.
The Impact and National Attention
Roberts-Smith’s defamation case has captured significant national attention and sparked a media debate of some intensity in Australia. The trial delved into every facet of his life, uncovering at time strange and often bizarre evidence. The courtroom drama became a focal point for discussions surrounding Australian war crimes in Afghanistan, with Roberts-Smith becoming the public face of these accusations.
The trial’s extensive duration and the estimated cost of A$25 million reflect the magnitude and significance of the case. The media and the public closely followed the proceedings, highlighting the nation’s keen interest in the outcome. The trial shed light on the secretive world of the Special Air Service (SAS) and its alleged “code of silence,” bringing attention to the culture and conduct within Australia’s elite military units.
The Brereton Report and Broader Implications
This high-profile trial unfolded against the backdrop of the 2020 Brereton Report, which found credible evidence of unlawful killings by Australian forces in Afghanistan. The report exposed a concerning “warrior culture” within some sections of the Australian military, particularly within the SAS. The trial prompted broader discussions about Australia’s military actions and raised questions about public trust in the defence force.
The outcome of the defamation trial carries significant legal and cultural implications for Australia. It has the potential to shape the trajectory of future war crimes investigations and prosecutions, setting a precedent for holding soldiers accountable for their actions. The case also forces Australia to confront its perception of military actions and grapple with the challenge of reconciling national pride with unsettling revelations emerging from the trial.
Ben Roberts-Smith’s defamation case has become a pivotal moment for Australia, impacting both its legal landscape and public perception of the military. The trial exposed shocking allegations of war crimes and misconduct, challenging the nation’s faith in its defence forces and the media’s responsibility to deliver accurate information. The outcome of the trial will not only determine Roberts-Smith’s reputation but will also shape Australia’s approach to addressing alleged war crimes committed by its soldiers.
As the judgment approaches, the nation awaits a decision that carries immense weight, symbolising a turning point in Australia’s journey toward accountability and transparency.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.