Australia's most-decorated living soldier Ben Roberts-Smith, has lost an appeal against a landmark defamation judgement which found he committed war crimes. A judge in 2023 ruled that news articles alleging the Victoria Cross recipient had murdered four unarmed Afghans were true, but Mr Roberts-Smith had argued the judge made legal errors. The civil trial was the first time in history any court has assessed claims of war crimes by Australian forces. A panel of three Federal Court judges on Friday upheld the original verdict. Mr Roberts-Smith, who left the defence force in 2013, maintains his innocence and has not been charged over any of the claims in a criminal court, where there is a higher burden of proof. The former special forces corporal sued three Australian newspapers over a series of articles alleging serious misconduct while he was deployed in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012 as part of a US-led military coalition. At the time the articles were published in 2018, Mr Roberts-Smith was considered a national hero, having been awarded Australia's highest military honour for single-handedly overpowering Taliban fighters attacking his Special Air Service (SAS) platoon. The 46-year-old argued the alleged killings occurred legally during combat or did not happen at all, claiming the papers ruined his life with their reports. His defamation case - which some have dubbed "the trial of the century" in Australia - lasted over 120 days and is now rumoured to have cost up to A$35m ($22.5m; £16.9m). In June 2023 Federal Court Justice Antony Besanko threw out the case against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, ruling it was "substantially true" that Mr Roberts-Smith had murdered unarmed Afghan prisoners and civilians and bullied fellow soldiers. He also found that Mr Roberts-Smith lied to cover up his misconduct and threatened witnesses. Additional allegations that he had punched his lover, threatened a peer, and committed two other murders were not proven to the "balance of probabilities" standard required in civil cases. The "heart" of the appeal case was that Justice Besanko didn't given enough weight to Mr Roberts-Smith's presumption of innocence, his barrister Bret Walker, SC said. There is a legal principle requiring judges to proceed carefully when dealing with civil cases that involve serious allegations and in making findings which carry grave consequences. Mr Walker argued that meant the evidence presented by the newspapers fell short of the standard required. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via theBBC News App. You can also follow@BBCBreaking on Xto get the latest alerts.
Top Australian soldier loses appeal over war crimes defamation case
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Ben Roberts-Smith Loses Appeal in Defamation Case Over War Crimes Allegations"
Bbc News
8.0
TruthLens AI Summary
Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia's most-decorated living soldier, has faced a significant legal setback after a panel of three Federal Court judges upheld a landmark defamation ruling that found he committed war crimes during his service in Afghanistan. The case centered around allegations that Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, murdered four unarmed Afghan men while deployed between 2009 and 2012. In 2023, Justice Antony Besanko ruled that the articles published by three major Australian newspapers were 'substantially true' and that Roberts-Smith had engaged in serious misconduct, including bullying fellow soldiers and lying to cover up his actions. The defamation trial, which lasted over 120 days and reportedly cost up to A$35 million, marked the first instance where a court assessed claims of war crimes by Australian forces, highlighting the serious implications of such allegations on a national hero's reputation.
Throughout the appeal process, Roberts-Smith maintained his innocence, arguing that the alleged killings were either legally justified during combat or did not occur at all. His legal team contended that the initial judgment failed to adequately consider his presumption of innocence and the high burden of proof needed for such serious allegations. Despite these arguments, the judges found the evidence presented by the newspapers met the necessary legal standards. Additional allegations against Roberts-Smith, including instances of domestic violence and further murder accusations, were not substantiated to the required degree in civil court. As the case concludes, it raises important questions about accountability and the conduct of military personnel, as well as the broader implications for the Australian Defence Force's reputation and the legal framework surrounding war crimes allegations.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The case of Ben Roberts-Smith has significant implications for Australia's military and legal landscape, as well as for public perception of war and heroism. This article highlights the ongoing struggles faced by a highly decorated soldier whose reputation has been tarnished by serious allegations of war crimes.
Legal Implications and Historical Context
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in Australia, as it is the first instance where claims of war crimes committed by Australian forces have been evaluated in a court. The original verdict, which affirmed the truth of the allegations against Roberts-Smith, sets a precedent and may influence future cases regarding military conduct and accountability. The legal intricacies of Roberts-Smith's appeal and the judges' decisions underscore the complexities involved in such defamation cases, particularly when they intersect with serious moral and ethical allegations like war crimes.
Public Perception and Narrative Shaping
The article aims to shape public perception concerning military heroism and accountability. By detailing the defamation case, it raises questions about the sanctity of national heroes and the potential for misconduct behind their decorated façades. The stark contrast between Roberts-Smith's previous status as a national hero and the current allegations serves to challenge societal narratives surrounding military service and valor, thereby affecting public sentiment regarding veterans and military operations.
Potential Concealment of Broader Issues
While the article focuses on Roberts-Smith's case, it might also serve to divert attention from broader systemic issues within the Australian military and government regarding accountability for actions taken during warfare. The focus on one soldier's legal battle could overshadow discussions about military policies, the treatment of veterans, and the implications of Australia's involvement in international conflicts.
Manipulative Elements and Trustworthiness
The article's framing could be seen as manipulative, particularly in how it presents the allegations and the historical significance of the case. The language used to describe Roberts-Smith's actions and the consequences of the court's ruling may provoke strong emotional responses from readers, potentially influencing their opinions. However, the factual basis of the article, backed by court findings, adds to its credibility.
Social and Economic Repercussions
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on public trust in the military, possibly leading to increased scrutiny of military operations and policies. Economically, the high costs associated with the trial may raise questions about funding for military operations versus legal accountability. Politically, this case could influence debates around military ethics and the treatment of veterans, affecting legislation and public policy.
Target Audience and Community Response
This article is likely to resonate with various communities, including those advocating for accountability in the military and those concerned about veterans' issues. The focus on a decorated soldier may also appeal to nationalist sentiments, creating a divide between supporters and critics of the military.
Market Impact and Global Context
While the article may not directly influence stock markets, it could indirectly affect defense contractors and companies involved in military operations due to shifts in public perception and potential changes in government policy. The implications of the case may also reflect broader conversations about international military engagement and accountability in war, relating to current global tensions.
AI Involvement in Article Composition
There is no clear indication that AI was used in the writing of this article. However, if AI were involved, it could potentially influence the tone and structure, ensuring a compelling narrative that emphasizes key points while maintaining factual integrity. The language choices may reflect an intention to engage readers emotionally while delivering factual information.
The article is fundamentally grounded in factual events and judicial outcomes, making it a reliable source of information regarding the case while also encouraging critical reflection on broader societal implications. Its trustworthiness stems from the court's findings and the historical context it provides, despite potential biases in the narrative framing.