Ben Roberts-Smith Appeals High-Profile Defamation Ruling
The former SAS corporal seeks to overturn a significant court judgment regarding war crimes during his deployment in Afghanistan.
Ben Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross and former Special Air Service (SAS) corporal, is set to find out on Friday whether he has succeeded in his appeal against a multimillion-dollar defamation loss.
His appeal stems from a ruling by Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko, which concluded that Roberts-Smith was complicit in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners during his service in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2012.
Roberts-Smith has consistently denied the allegations made against him and asserts that the judgment was flawed due to legal errors.
The appeal was heard over a 10-day period in February of the previous year, with the decision awaited for over a year.
The Full Court of the Federal Court is expected to announce its ruling on Friday morning, addressing both the appeal and a request from Roberts-Smith to introduce new evidence concerning a covert recording involving journalists from The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
Bret Walker, SC, who represents Roberts-Smith, emphasized during the appeal that a primary cornerstone of their argument is the presumption of innocence.
He argued that the evidence presented by the media outlets in defense of their reporting did not meet the required standard of proof, which he termed the "exactness of proof."
Conversely, Nicholas Owens, SC, representing the newspapers, contended that the situation is straightforward.
He asserted that the identities of the individuals responsible for the killings are known, as well as the method—gunshot.
The dispute lies primarily in the immediate circumstances surrounding these deaths, specifically whether they were lawful acts of combat or unlawful killings.
A notable development occurred in March when a clandestine recording surfaced that featured journalist Nick McKenzie discussing the case with a witness prior to her testimony at the trial in 2022. This prompted Roberts-Smith to seek a reopening of his appeal based on potential misconduct.
Roberts-Smith's legal representatives posited that this new evidence could substantially alter the outcome of the initial trial.
The legal representatives of the media organizations responded, describing the original trial as having thoroughly and fairly examined the issues pertinent to the case.
They argue that despite calls for a retrial or for the judgment to be overturned in favor of Roberts-Smith, the foundational aspects of the trial were sound and just.
His appeal stems from a ruling by Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko, which concluded that Roberts-Smith was complicit in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners during his service in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2012.
Roberts-Smith has consistently denied the allegations made against him and asserts that the judgment was flawed due to legal errors.
The appeal was heard over a 10-day period in February of the previous year, with the decision awaited for over a year.
The Full Court of the Federal Court is expected to announce its ruling on Friday morning, addressing both the appeal and a request from Roberts-Smith to introduce new evidence concerning a covert recording involving journalists from The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
Bret Walker, SC, who represents Roberts-Smith, emphasized during the appeal that a primary cornerstone of their argument is the presumption of innocence.
He argued that the evidence presented by the media outlets in defense of their reporting did not meet the required standard of proof, which he termed the "exactness of proof."
Conversely, Nicholas Owens, SC, representing the newspapers, contended that the situation is straightforward.
He asserted that the identities of the individuals responsible for the killings are known, as well as the method—gunshot.
The dispute lies primarily in the immediate circumstances surrounding these deaths, specifically whether they were lawful acts of combat or unlawful killings.
A notable development occurred in March when a clandestine recording surfaced that featured journalist Nick McKenzie discussing the case with a witness prior to her testimony at the trial in 2022. This prompted Roberts-Smith to seek a reopening of his appeal based on potential misconduct.
Roberts-Smith's legal representatives posited that this new evidence could substantially alter the outcome of the initial trial.
The legal representatives of the media organizations responded, describing the original trial as having thoroughly and fairly examined the issues pertinent to the case.
They argue that despite calls for a retrial or for the judgment to be overturned in favor of Roberts-Smith, the foundational aspects of the trial were sound and just.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
