Australian War Hero's Defamation Appeal Fails: Full Breakdown Of The Ruling

Michael

3 min read

Post on May 17, 2025

5.0

Share

Australian War Hero's Defamation Appeal Fails: Full Breakdown of the Ruling

A landmark defamation case involving decorated Australian war hero, Ben Roberts-Smith VC, has concluded with the dismissal of his appeal against a damning judgment. This article provides a comprehensive breakdown of the ruling and its implications.

The Federal Court's rejection of Roberts-Smith's appeal marks the final chapter in a protracted legal battle that captivated the nation. The initial trial found that Roberts-Smith committed war crimes, including murder, during his deployment to Afghanistan. This decision, however, was not solely about war crimes accusations; it centered on claims of defamation made by Roberts-Smith against various media outlets that published allegations of misconduct.

The Original Defamation Case:

Roberts-Smith sued The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and The Canberra Times for publishing articles alleging he committed war crimes and other acts of brutality during his service in Afghanistan. These allegations, detailed in investigative journalism, painted a starkly different picture of the decorated soldier than the public image he had cultivated.

Key Allegations:

The articles accused Roberts-Smith of:

• Murdering unarmed Afghan civilians: The most serious allegations centered around the alleged execution of prisoners and unarmed men during combat operations.
• Witness intimidation: Claims were made that Roberts-Smith intimidated witnesses to prevent them from reporting alleged war crimes.
• Assaulting an Afghan man: Allegations involved the assault of an Afghan man who was later found to have been severely injured and released without charge.
• Unlawful conduct: The case included allegations of unlawful conduct and abuse of power during his military service.

The Trial and Initial Verdict:

The initial trial, which lasted several months, heard extensive evidence from numerous witnesses, including fellow soldiers and Afghan civilians. Justice Anthony Besanko ultimately found in favor of the newspapers, concluding that Roberts-Smith's reputation was not damaged by the publications. The judge found the publications to be substantially true, corroborating the serious allegations made against the war hero.

The Appeal and its Dismissal:

Roberts-Smith subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that the judge had made errors in his judgment. However, the full Federal Court unanimously rejected this appeal, upholding the original verdict. The court found no basis to overturn Justice Besanko's findings, effectively confirming the damaging allegations against Roberts-Smith.

Implications of the Ruling:

This decision has significant implications:

• Accountability for war crimes: The upholding of the defamation verdict reinforces the seriousness of the war crimes allegations against Roberts-Smith. While not a criminal conviction, it adds substantial weight to the accusations.
• Freedom of the press: The ruling is seen as a significant victory for investigative journalism and freedom of the press in Australia. It demonstrates the importance of holding powerful individuals accountable, even those with decorated military records.
• Public perception of war heroes: The case has significantly challenged the public perception of war heroes and the potential for misconduct within the military. It highlights the need for thorough investigation and accountability within the armed forces.

What's Next?

While the defamation case is concluded, the possibility of future criminal proceedings remains. Investigations into the allegations of war crimes are ongoing. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) continues its inquiry, and the outcome of this investigation will be crucial in determining whether Roberts-Smith faces further legal challenges.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of accountability, even for those lauded as national heroes. It underscores the crucial role of investigative journalism in uncovering the truth, even when facing powerful individuals and institutions. The long-term ramifications of this landmark ruling are yet to fully unfold. However, it is certain to impact future debates about military conduct, media accountability and the pursuit of justice.