Aussie war hero loses court appeal over war crimes
Aussie war hero loses court appeal over war crimes
Ben Roberts-Smith leaves the Federal Court in Sydney. File photo: AFP
One of Australia's most decorated soldiers on Friday lost a legal bid to overturn bombshell court findings that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan.
Former SAS commando Ben Roberts-Smith has been fighting to repair his tattered reputation since 2018, when newspapers unearthed allegations he took part in the murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners.
His multi-million dollar bid to sue three Australian newspapers for defamation failed in 2023, with a judge ruling the bulk of the journalists' claims were "substantially true".
The 46-year-old suffered another setback on Friday, when Australia's Federal Court dismissed his appeal.
Justice Nye Perram withheld the reasons for the decision, saying there were national security implications the government must consider before they are released.
A published summary said there was sufficient evidence to support findings that Roberts-Smith had "murdered four Afghan men".
Perth-born Roberts-Smith had been Australia's most famous and distinguished living soldier.
He won the Victoria Cross – Australia's highest military honour – for "conspicuous gallantry" in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander.
The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times shredded this reputation with a series of reports in 2018.
They reported Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him.
He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel.
The 2023 court ruling ultimately implicated Roberts-Smith in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners.
Civil court matters such as defamation have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials.
Roberts-Smith has not faced criminal charges.
Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of US and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other militant groups.
A 2020 military investigation found special forces personnel "unlawfully killed" 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners, revealing allegations of summary executions, body count competitions and torture by Australian forces. (AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
7 hours ago
- RTHK
Wrongly deported migrant arrested on return to US
Wrongly deported migrant arrested on return to US Kilmar Abrego García was imprisoned in El Salvador for almost three months before returning to the United States. File photo: AFP Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported from Maryland to El Salvador by the Trump administration, has returned to the United States to face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants within the US, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday. Abrego Garcia's return marks a turning point in a case that became a broader symbol of criticisms of President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration policies. Critics, including many congressional Democrats, pointed to the case as a sign that the administration was disregarding civil liberties in its push to step up deportations. But the administration insisted that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, an accusation that his lawyers denied. On Friday, administration officials portrayed the indictment of Abrego Garcia by a grand jury in Tennessee as vindication of their approach – even though the charges were filed on May 21, more than two months after Abrego Garcia's March 15 deportation. At a press conference, Bondi said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Abrego Garcia to the US after US officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. "The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring," Bondi said in a press conference. Abrego Garcia will have the chance to enter a plea in court and contest the charges at trial. If he is convicted, he would be deported to El Salvador after serving his sentence, Bondi said. In a statement, Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so," said Rossman. Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, despite an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection from deportation to El Salvador after finding he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned there, court records show. After his lawyers challenged the basis for his deportation, the US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his "warrantless arrest.' (Reuters)
RTHK
a day ago
- RTHK
Musk says Trump 'is in the Epstein files'
Musk says Trump 'is in the Epstein files' The tweet by Elon Musk that alleges Donald Trump's link to Jeffrey Epstein. Photo: AFP With one tweet linking Donald Trump with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, Elon Musk reignites a long-running conspiracy theory beloved of the US president's far right supporters. The tech billionaire – who exited his role as a top White House adviser just last week – alleged on Thursday that the Republican leader is featured in secret government files on rich and powerful former Epstein associates. The Trump administration has acknowledged it is reviewing tens of thousands of documents, videos and investigative material that his "Maga" movement says will unmask public figures complicit in Epstein's crimes. "Time to drop the really big bomb: [Trump] is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on his social media platform, X, as a growing feud with the president boiled over into a vicious public spat. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Supporters on the conspiratorial end of Trump's base allege that Epstein's associates had their roles in his crimes covered up by government officials and others. They point the finger at Democrats and Hollywood celebrities, however, not at Trump himself, and no official source has ever confirmed that the president appears in any of the material. Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about, and offered no evidence for his claim. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Thursday called Musk's behaviour "an unfortunate episode" adding the Tesla tycoon is "unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted." But the allegation prompted fresh demands for a release of the material – this time from Democrats keen on turning a Maga conspiracy theory back on its proponents. Epstein died by suicide in a New York prison in 2019 after being charged with sex trafficking. Trump has denied spending time on Little Saint James, the private redoubt in the US Virgin Islands where prosecutors alleged Epstein sex trafficked underage girls. The president said ahead of his election last year that he would have "no problem" releasing files related to Epstein. The administration has made public over 63,000 pages tied to the JFK assassination, but Trump has not fully followed through on the Epstein files pledge. The PolitiFact nonprofit investigated Trump's denials and concluded that he had flown on Epstein's jet at least seven times, and noted that the pair attended the same parties in the 1990s. But it also said there was no evidence Trump visited Epstein's island. "Terrific guy," Trump, who was Epstein's neighbour in both Florida and New York, said in an early 2000s profile of Epstein. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." One of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre – who died by suicide in April, according to her family – filed a lawsuit saying he had flown her to sexual encounters with royals, politicians and others when she was underage. Lawmakers in the opposition Democrats jumped on Musk's allegation to renew their calls for the release of more detailed files. "I called for the full release of the Epstein Files a month ago because of my suspicion that [Attorney General Pam Bondi] was concealing the files to protect Donald Trump," New York congressman Dan Goldman posted on X. "Now my suspicion has been confirmed." His fellow House Democrat Ted Lieu of California said Musk's accusation had confirmed his own belief that Trump is "all over the Epstein files." "I urge the Department of Justice to release all the Epstein files. What is the Trump administration hiding?" he said. Tim Miller, a former Republican National Committee spokesman turned fierce Trump critic, echoed the call. "The American people deserve to know if our president is a pedophile," he posted on X. (AFP)
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Asia Times
Anwar's immunity bid fails in rule-of-law test for Malaysia
In a landmark June 4 ruling, Malaysia's High Court denied Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's controversial attempt to shield himself from civil proceedings by invoking a constitutional mechanism — a move critics say was a veiled attempt at political immunity. The court's rejection of Anwar's bid marks the beginning of a legal confrontation unprecedented in Malaysian history: a sitting prime minister now stands to defend himself in court while governing the nation. The decision arrives on the heels of a motion by Anwar's legal team seeking to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court. These questions, according to the defense, pertained to the burdens placed on the Prime Minister's Office by an ongoing civil suit and were framed not as an immunity plea but as a request for a 'constitutional filter.' Yet the distinction was semantic at best. 'We are not claiming immunity,' Anwar's counsel asserted on June 3. 'We are simply seeking clarity to protect the executive's function.' But the subtext was clear: Anwar wanted out of the dock. The case in question — a civil suit filed by Muhammed Yusoff Rawther alleging sexual misconduct by Anwar — predates Anwar's premiership. The incident allegedly occurred in 2018, and Rawther filed the suit in 2020. Notably, Anwar did not attempt to strike out the suit at any point over the past three years. Only on May 23, 2025 — a staggering 912 days after he assumed office — did he pivot to constitutional arguments. Rawther's lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, minced no words in court. 'Why did the Prime Minister take 912 days to raise this issue?' he asked. 'If the matter truly affected his ability to discharge executive functions, he should have addressed it long ago.' Rafique also pointed out that Anwar's affidavit failed to provide any reason for the delay — a procedural omission that, in the eyes of many, exposed the real motivation behind the application. More damningly, Rafique invoked Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. 'No man — not even the Prime Minister — can stand above that,' he said. 'Immunity, whether cloaked as a filter or wrapped in legalese, is still immunity.' Presiding Judge Roz Mawar Rozain dismissed all eight questions as 'untenable, abstract and speculative.' She ruled that the Federal Court need not be burdened with academic hypotheticals. The trial, she affirmed, will proceed as scheduled on June 16, and 20,000 ringgit (US$4,700) in legal costs were awarded to Rawther. Anwar's team immediately sought an urgent stay of the ruling, but it also was dismissed. They now have 30 days to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal, though the countdown to the trial has already begun. In her oral judgment, Roz Mawar made it clear: Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Constitution — which Anwar's team cited to support their plea — contain no implicit or explicit provision for immunity. The Constitution, she emphasized, enshrines accountability, not executive insulation. Anwar's maneuver has drawn comparisons to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2020 attempt to sidestep legal scrutiny. Facing multiple indictments, Netanyahu petitioned the Knesset for parliamentary immunity, claiming the charges were politically motivated. While Israel's system at least provides a legal pathway for such immunity via legislative vote, Malaysia's does not. Anwar's attempt to manufacture a similar buffer through the courts was both bold and, ultimately, unsuccessful. In both cases, the public response was the same: dismay at the spectacle of a sitting prime minister attempting to rewrite the rules mid-game. Anwar's critics say his move reeks of the same hubris — a desperate attempt to evade moral reckoning while cloaked in constitutional garb. For a man who once stood as the face of Reformasi, the optics are devastating. Here is Anwar — long celebrated as a martyr of political injustice, imprisoned under Mahathir Mohamad's authoritarian regime — now attempting to insulate himself from due process using the very levers of power he once opposed. This isn't Anwar's first brush with accusations of overreach. His 1999 conviction for abuse of power — widely seen as politically charged — is now being unearthed in conversations across social media and political circles alike. History, as they say, echoes. The parallel doesn't stop there. Like Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra — another leader accused of self-enrichment and later pardoned — Anwar has blurred the lines between public service and political dynasty. His appointment of Thaksin as ASEAN adviser and his own daughter Nurul Izzah as Deputy President of the PKR have raised questions about nepotism and political insulation, further damaging his image as a reformer. Conversely, Rawther's credibility has only been strengthened by this legal victory. He has, for years, insisted that his pursuit of justice is not politically motivated. The June 4 ruling — which affirms the legitimacy of his claim and the court's commitment to due process — lends weight to that assertion. In a political landscape often defined by backroom deals and unaccountable elites, Rawther has emerged as a symbol of perseverance — a private citizen holding the nation's most powerful man to legal scrutiny. This verdict could well reshape how Malaysia is seen on the regional stage. As the country currently chairing ASEAN, the world is watching. The failure of Anwar's immunity gambit is a litmus test of Malaysia's democratic maturity. What signal would it have sent if a sitting Prime Minister could so easily erect a legal wall around himself? The judiciary, by rejecting this narrative, has reaffirmed Malaysia's commitment to constitutional supremacy and rule of law. In Rafique's words outside the court, 'This ruling ensures that in Malaysia, no executive, no prime Minister, no monarch can place himself above the people.' This episode will linger in the nation's political memory — not just for what it reveals about Anwar's instincts, but for what it says about the resilience of Malaysia's institutions. The prime minister now finds himself in uncharted territory: governing while on trial, a dual burden with no modern precedent in Malaysia. Anwar once said, 'Justice is the soul of governance.' It remains to be seen whether he will honor that creed — or be judged by it.
