Ben Roberts-Smith's defamation case, which revolved around grave accusations of misconduct, has resulted in a significant verdict outcome.
Controversial Appeal Denied: Top Australian Soldier's War Crimes Defamation Case Upheld
Controversial Appeal Denied: Top Australian Soldier's War Crimes Defamation Case Upheld
A landmark case regarding war crimes allegations against a celebrated Australian soldier has seen its appeal rejected.
The controversy surrounding Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia's most decorated living soldier, has taken a critical turn as his appeal against a pivotal defamation ruling was rejected. The 2023 decision established that the allegations made in several news articles—that he committed war crimes by murdering four unarmed Afghans—were substantially true. Roberts-Smith, a former special forces corporal who served in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2012, had challenged the initial ruling, contesting that the judge made various legal errors in reaching his verdict.
The civil trial marked a historic moment in Australia, being the first instance where a court evaluated claims of war crimes involving Australian military personnel. On Friday, a panel of three judges from the Federal Court upheld the original verdict, further solidifying the allegations against Roberts-Smith.
Although he maintains his innocence and has not faced charges in a criminal court—which necessitates a higher burden of proof—Roberts-Smith's story has turned from that of a national hero to one steeped in controversy. He had been lauded for receiving Australia’s highest military honor for valor during engagements with Taliban forces.
Throughout a protracted legal battle, dubbed by many as "the trial of the century," Roberts-Smith contended that the allegations depicted in a series of 2018 articles published by three major Australian newspapers severely damaged his reputation and personal life. His legal team argued that the killings in question occurred within the confines of lawful combat or simply did not happen at all.
Earlier in June 2023, Justice Antony Besanko dismissed Roberts-Smith's case against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, substantiating that he indeed murdered unarmed Afghan prisoners and civilians, alongside bullying fellow soldiers. The judge also noted that Roberts-Smith attempted to cover up his misconduct and issued threats to witnesses.
Claims regarding instances of domestic violence and additional murder allegations were found to lack the necessary evidential support required for civil cases. The crux of Roberts-Smith's appeal was centered on the argument that the presumption of his innocence had not been adequately considered, with his barrister asserting that the evidence provided did not meet the expected legal standards.
As the case continues to unfold, it has drawn immense public attention and debate, highlighting the complex relationship between military honor, misconduct, and accountability in Australia.
The civil trial marked a historic moment in Australia, being the first instance where a court evaluated claims of war crimes involving Australian military personnel. On Friday, a panel of three judges from the Federal Court upheld the original verdict, further solidifying the allegations against Roberts-Smith.
Although he maintains his innocence and has not faced charges in a criminal court—which necessitates a higher burden of proof—Roberts-Smith's story has turned from that of a national hero to one steeped in controversy. He had been lauded for receiving Australia’s highest military honor for valor during engagements with Taliban forces.
Throughout a protracted legal battle, dubbed by many as "the trial of the century," Roberts-Smith contended that the allegations depicted in a series of 2018 articles published by three major Australian newspapers severely damaged his reputation and personal life. His legal team argued that the killings in question occurred within the confines of lawful combat or simply did not happen at all.
Earlier in June 2023, Justice Antony Besanko dismissed Roberts-Smith's case against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, substantiating that he indeed murdered unarmed Afghan prisoners and civilians, alongside bullying fellow soldiers. The judge also noted that Roberts-Smith attempted to cover up his misconduct and issued threats to witnesses.
Claims regarding instances of domestic violence and additional murder allegations were found to lack the necessary evidential support required for civil cases. The crux of Roberts-Smith's appeal was centered on the argument that the presumption of his innocence had not been adequately considered, with his barrister asserting that the evidence provided did not meet the expected legal standards.
As the case continues to unfold, it has drawn immense public attention and debate, highlighting the complex relationship between military honor, misconduct, and accountability in Australia.
