Gina Rinehart calls out 'relentless attack' on Ben Roberts-Smith - as she asks the question on the mind of many Aussies
Gina Rinehart has hit back at a 'relentless attack' on Ben Roberts-Smith after he lost his defamation appeal against Nine newspapers.
Decorated war veteran Mr Roberts-Smith failed last week to overturn findings that he was likely complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians while on deployment in Afghanistan.
The Victoria Cross recipient had sued Nine newspapers and journalists Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters for defamation over their reports in 2018, which claimed he had committed war crimes.
In 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko found on the balance of probabilities that Roberts-Smith was responsible for the murder of the four civilians.
Mr Roberts-Smith appealed the finding and after a year of waiting, the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed his appeal on Friday.
Billionaire mining tycoon Ms Rinehart then came out in support of Mr Roberts-Smith over the weekend.
In a statement, she said the court's decision had been 'taken by some in Channel 9 as something they can gloat about,' according to The Australian.
'This relentless attack hasn't made the country better, as some journalists like to imply, it's just weakened our Defence Force, already struggling with inadequate numbers to defend us,' Ms Rinehart said.
'Many patriotic Australians ask, is it fair that this brave and patriotic man who risked his life on overseas missions which he was sent on by our government, is under such attack.'
Ms Rinehart declined to say whether or not she had helped fund the case.
Mr Roberts-Smith has indicated that he plans to appeal Friday's decision in the High Court.
'I continue to maintain my innocence and deny these egregious spiteful allegations,' he said in a statement.
The decision clears the path for the soldier to pay out tens of millions of dollars, after the cost of the defamation proceedings was tipped to exceed $25million in 2023.
Mr Roberts-Smith first rose to prominence in 2011 after he was awarded Australia's highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, for single-handedly taking out machine-gun posts to protect pinned-down colleagues in Afghanistan.
Later named Australian Father of the Year, his reputation was tarnished by Mr McKenzie's explosive reports in 2018 alleging the former SAS corporal was complicit in war crimes.
The reports claimed Mr Roberts-Smith machine-gunned a man with a prosthetic leg - which he then encouraged soldiers to use as a drinking vessel.
On the same day in 2009, Mr Roberts-Smith was alleged to have ordered the execution of an elderly prisoner to 'blood the rookie' during a raid on a compound known as Whiskey 108.
The former special forces soldier was accused of kicking a handcuffed prisoner off a cliff in the village of Darwan before dragging him to a creek and ordering his execution on September 11, 2012.
Nine's coverage claimed Mr Roberts-Smith ordered another prisoner be shot and killed after a weapons cache was discovered in the village of Cinartu.
Justice Besanko's findings - upheld on Friday - were made on the balance of probabilities. Roberts-Smith has not been charged over the allegations.
Federal Court Justices Nye Perram, Anna Katzmann and Geoffrey Kennett on Friday also found McKenzie had done nothing wrong in relation to a secret recording between him and a woman known as Person 17 in the original trial.
Person 17 had once been Mr Roberts-Smith's mistress and accused him of punching her in the head after a function at Parliament House, which Justice Anthony Besanko found had not been proved.
Mr McKenzie was recorded in early 2021 telling Person 17 that Roberts-Smith's estranged wife Emma and her friend Danielle Scott were 'actively briefing us on his legal strategy in respect of you'.
'I shouldn't tell you,' McKenzie said in the 85-second audio clip. 'I've just breached my f***ing ethics in doing that.'
Roberts-Smith's lawyers contended Mr McKenzie had received legally privileged information which led to a miscarriage of justice.
Mr McKenzie denied he had received any material he knew to be privileged and on Friday the Full Court unanimously accepted his evidence.
After the decision, Hachette Australia announced it would release an updated edition of Crossing the Line, Mr McKenzie's book about Australian conduct in Afghanistan.
The book would include 'exclusive new material on the appeal (by Mr Roberts-Smith), the continuing fallout, and the emotional and professional toll of the case,' the publisher said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Justin Baldoni's $400m defamation claim against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds dismissed
A judge on Monday dismissed Justin Baldoni's $400m defamation claim against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, after finding that Lively's accusations of sexual harassment against Baldoni were legally protected and therefore immune from suit. The entire lawsuit from Baldoni, the actor and director, which included claims of extortion, was dismissed by Lewis Liman, a US district judge of New York. But the ruling allows Baldoni to amend and refile some allegations regarding interference with contracts. Liman also dismissed Baldoni's $250m defamation claim against the New York Times, finding that the newspaper's reporting on the claims was protected under 'fair report' privilege. At the center of the complex dispute are claims from Lively and Reynolds that Baldoni had sexually harassed Lively on the set of It Ends with Us, in which Lively starred and Baldoni both acted and directed. Lively and Reynolds also alleged that Baldoni conducted a smear campaign against her after she complained about conditions on the set of the film. Baldoni's defamation claim against the New York Times, Lively, Reynolds, and their publicist alleged that they had conspired to destroy his career with false allegations. Referring to Baldoni's production company Wayfarer, which produced It Ends With Us, Liman's ruling Monday said that 'the Wayfarer parties have alleged that Reynolds and [publicist Leslie] Sloane made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct and that the Times made additional statements accusing the Wayfarer parties of engaging in a smear campaign. 'But the Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Reynolds, Sloane or the Times would have seriously doubted these statements were true based on the information available to them, as is required for them to be liable for defamation under applicable law.' In a statement following the ruling, Lively's lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, said in a statement that Liman's ruling 'is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and the New York Times'. The statement continued: 'As we have said from day one, this [$400m] lawsuit was a sham, and the court saw right through it. We look forward to the next round, which is seeking attorneys' fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Baldoni … and the other Wayfarer Parties who perpetrated this abusive litigation.' Attorneys for Baldoni have not immediately commented. Rulings from the district to which Liman belongs can be appealed to the US second circuit court.
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Dale Vince's personal data claim against publisher thrown out
Dale Vince's High Court claim against a newspaper publisher has been thrown Vince, industrialist and founder of Stroud-based energy firm, Ecotricity, brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a Daily Mail article headlined "Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor", published in June story said Labour was handing back money to donor Davide Serra with a picture showing Mr Vince holding a Just Stop Oil Vince claimed ANL misused his personal data, but the judge said it should have been heard with the defamation claim in July 2024 as "any ordinary reader would very quickly realise Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment". An employment tribunal in 2022 heard Mr Serra had made sexist comments to a female colleague which were found to amount to unlawful harassment related to original picture remained in print but was changed on The Mail+ app to one of Mr Serra 47 minutes after had defended the claim and its lawyers previously told the High Court in London it was an abuse of process and a "resurrection" of a libel claim that was dismissed last Justice Swift said at the High Court on Monday: "There is no real prospect that Mr Vince will succeed on his claim. Law 'predates internet' "As in the defamation proceedings, it is accepted that on reading the text of the article published in Mail+ and the Daily Mail any ordinary reader would very quickly realise that Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment."Considered on this basis the personal data relating to Mr Vince was processed fairly."He said there was "every reason" why the data protection claim should have been heard with the defamation claim last the decision, Mr Vince said he planned to appeal and the relevant media law "predates the internet".He said: "The judge said if you read the whole story, you'd realise the headline was not about me, begging the question why was my face highlighted in the articles perhaps."But more importantly, people don't read entire articles, the law assumes it - but does so wrongly, against all data and against common sense."
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How another Labor immigration blunder has allowed a vile child sex offender to remain in Australia
The Albanese government took too long to scrap the visa of a migrant who performed an indecent act in front of a child, so he can stay in Australia, a court has ruled. The Federal Court decision is the latest in a string of immigration policy blunders to weigh on the party since 2023 - causing ex-Immigration Minister Andrew Giles to be demoted - though it seems it didn't harm Labor's performance at the March election. Federal Court judge Christopher Horan found a decision to deport the man, known as XMBQ, was unlawful because there was an 'unreasonable' delay between the appeals tribunal deciding the man could stay and termination of his visa. The ruling, first reported by The Australian, could set a precedent requiring immigration ministers to make decisions within a particular timeframe. Giles - now replaced by Tony Burke - previously came under fire for being caught off guard by the High Court's ruling in November 2023 that indefinite immigration detention was illegal, resulting in the release of more than a hundred criminals. Later, he was criticised over his Ministerial guideline, known as Direction 99, that stated a migrant's family connections to Australia and how long they have lived here should be considered in potential deportation cases, despite a criminal's rap sheet. Giles moved to cancel dozens of visas after it emerged that violent offenders were using the measure to avoid deportation. In the latest case XMBQ, a Somali man, had convictions for kicking a police officer in the face and performing a sex act in front of a 29-year-old woman and a 13-year-old girl on public transport. Lawyers for XMBQ challenged whether the former Immigration Minister's intervention in his case was legal. Giles cancelled the Somali man's visa on June 8, 2024 after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided he should be allowed to stay in April 2021. Justice Horan said the delay between the appeal and Giles's decision was far too long, ruling in the favour of XMBQ. 'If the minister is to exercise the power to set aside the original decision and cancel the visa, the minister must do so within a reasonable time,' the judgment said. 'Otherwise, the connection with the original decision as the object of the power will be lost, and it can no longer be said that the minister is addressing or responding to the state of affairs produced by or resulting from the original decision.' Immigration law specialist Simon Jeans said that although Giles had the power to cancel this visa it 'was a risk' and a 'decision [made] in haste' as he was under pressure to save his job. He suggested it would have been less risky for the Immigration Department to cancel XMBQ's visa rather than the minister intervening. XMBQ was born in Somalia in the 1960s before fleeing to Lebanon in 1993. He arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2004. XMBQ was placed on the sex offenders register for 15 years after pleading guilty to the public exposure charges in June 2017. In December 2017, his visa was cancelled by a delegate of the immigration minister but this was later overturned in the Federal Court. Lawyers for the man claimed Giles's decision to cancel his visa had been impacted by XMBQ being charged with two counts of rape, although he was not convicted. Justice Horan rejected this claim. The Albanese government and Mr Giles suffered a similar blow in January this year when a Bhutan-born man who attacked his wife with a meat cleaver was allowed to remain in Australia by the Federal Court. It ruled Mr Giles had made multiple 'jurisdictional errors' by overturning an appeals decision that the man could remain in Australia, because he did not consider the effect of deportation on his children and his stateless person status.
