Roberts-Smith Defamation Appeal: A Top Soldier's Legal Setback

Michael

3 min read

Post on May 18, 2025

4.7

Share

Roberts-Smith Defamation Appeal: A Top Soldier's Legal Setback

A high-profile defamation case involving one of Australia's most decorated soldiers, Ben Roberts-Smith, has suffered a significant blow. The Federal Court's dismissal of his defamation case against three major Australian newspapers – The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and The Canberra Times – sent shockwaves through the nation and ignited intense debate about the legacy of the war in Afghanistan and the accountability of military personnel. This article delves into the key details of the appeal and its implications.

The Original Defamation Case: Allegations of War Crimes

The original defamation case stemmed from articles published in 2018 alleging that Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, committed war crimes during his deployment to Afghanistan. These allegations included accusations of murder, unlawful killings, and bullying. Roberts-Smith vehemently denied these claims, arguing they were defamatory and damaged his reputation. The initial trial, lasting several months, involved extensive testimony from witnesses, including fellow soldiers and Afghan civilians.

The Federal Court's Decision: A Crushing Defeat

In June 2022, Justice Anthony Besanko delivered a judgment finding that the newspapers had proven the substantial truth of their publications. The judge found that Roberts-Smith was involved in six unlawful killings, including the murder of an unarmed Afghan man referred to as "Ali" and the killing of a young Afghan man on the orders of another soldier (an incident known as the "Khader" incident). Furthermore, the court accepted evidence of Roberts-Smith's involvement in brutal treatment and bullying of subordinates. This decision represented a resounding defeat for Roberts-Smith and a significant victory for the newspapers.

The Appeal: A Last Stand?

Roberts-Smith lodged an appeal against the Federal Court's judgment. This appeal focused on several key points, including:

• The Judge's Findings: The appeal challenged the judge's interpretation of the evidence and the weight given to different witnesses.
• Procedural Issues: Arguments were raised concerning procedural aspects of the trial, suggesting potential flaws in the process.
• Reputation Damage: The appeal attempted to argue that even if some allegations were true, the overall effect of the publications was still defamatory.

However, the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The High Court of Australia upheld the original verdict in a decision that has ended Roberts-Smith's lengthy legal battle.

The Broader Implications: Accountability and the Military

The Roberts-Smith case has far-reaching implications beyond the individual involved. It highlights the importance of accountability for alleged war crimes and raises questions about the conduct of Australian forces in Afghanistan. The case has also sparked a broader discussion regarding the culture within the Australian Defence Force and the challenges of investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct within military ranks. The outcome will likely lead to further scrutiny of Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict and prompt discussions on military justice reform.

The full judgment from the High Court can be found . Further analysis and commentary on the case can be found on websites of leading Australian news outlets such as and .

This landmark case serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of military justice and the importance of holding those in positions of power accountable for their actions. The long-term effects of this legal setback for Roberts-Smith and the wider implications for the Australian Defence Force are sure to be debated and analyzed for years to come.