In a historic ruling, Australia’s highly decorated soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, has faced defeat in his appeal against a defamation verdict that upheld claims he committed war crimes while deployed in Afghanistan.
Top Australian Soldier's Defamation Appeal Overturned in Landmark Case
Top Australian Soldier's Defamation Appeal Overturned in Landmark Case
Ben Roberts-Smith's legal battle marks a significant moment in the assessment of war crimes allegations against Australian forces.
The Federal Court’s panel reaffirmed that allegations of murdering four unarmed Afghan prisoners were "substantially true," establishing a precedent in assessing wartime conduct in Australia.
Roberts-Smith, a former special forces corporal and recipient of the Victoria Cross, contested the 2023 judgment which claimed he had murdered unarmed individuals, contending that it was legally acceptable combat or that the events did not occur. He emphasized the catastrophic impact of the reporting on his life, maintaining his innocence amidst the controversy.
The defamation trial, labeled "the trial of the century" in Australia, unfolded over 120 days and is believed to have cost upwards of A$35 million (approximately $22.5 million). Initial reporting in 2018 painted Roberts-Smith as a national hero for overpowering Taliban insurgents, raising the stakes for both sides in the legally unprecedented case.
Justice Antony Besanko dismissed Roberts-Smith's allegations against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, confirming the serious misconduct described in the articles. The court found that Roberts-Smith not only murdered civilians but also coerced fellow soldiers and attempted to obscure his actions by threatening witnesses.
Despite the court's ruling, Roberts-Smith’s legal team argued that the judge failed to adequately consider his presumption of innocence. His barrister, Bret Walker, argued that this should influence the court's scrutiny of the case, suggesting that the media’s evidence did not meet the required standard.
As this story continues to develop, it reflects broader concerns regarding accountability within the Australian military during the Afghan War, prompting discussions on the implications for veterans and the military community at large.
Roberts-Smith, a former special forces corporal and recipient of the Victoria Cross, contested the 2023 judgment which claimed he had murdered unarmed individuals, contending that it was legally acceptable combat or that the events did not occur. He emphasized the catastrophic impact of the reporting on his life, maintaining his innocence amidst the controversy.
The defamation trial, labeled "the trial of the century" in Australia, unfolded over 120 days and is believed to have cost upwards of A$35 million (approximately $22.5 million). Initial reporting in 2018 painted Roberts-Smith as a national hero for overpowering Taliban insurgents, raising the stakes for both sides in the legally unprecedented case.
Justice Antony Besanko dismissed Roberts-Smith's allegations against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, confirming the serious misconduct described in the articles. The court found that Roberts-Smith not only murdered civilians but also coerced fellow soldiers and attempted to obscure his actions by threatening witnesses.
Despite the court's ruling, Roberts-Smith’s legal team argued that the judge failed to adequately consider his presumption of innocence. His barrister, Bret Walker, argued that this should influence the court's scrutiny of the case, suggesting that the media’s evidence did not meet the required standard.
As this story continues to develop, it reflects broader concerns regarding accountability within the Australian military during the Afghan War, prompting discussions on the implications for veterans and the military community at large.
