logo
Ben Roberts-Smith to Appeal to High Court Over War Crimes Reporting Saga

Ben Roberts-Smith to Appeal to High Court Over War Crimes Reporting Saga

Epoch Times20-05-2025

A seven-year legal battle between publisher Nine, two of its journalists, and decorated war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith will continue after he said he would be taking the case to the High Court.
The Federal Court had earlier upheld a decision that found Roberts-Smith was responsible for the murder of four unarmed civilians in Afghanistan.
Roberts-Smith rose to prominence in 2011 after being awarded Australia's highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, for single-handedly taking out machine-gun posts to protect pinned-down colleagues.
In 2015, he was appointed deputy general manager of the regional television network Seven Queensland and later, general manager of Seven Brisbane.
The Case Against Roberts-Smith
But two years later, a newspaper owned by media company Nine Entertainment reported that in 2006, he decided to hunt down and shoot 'enemies' that he presumed had spotted his patrol.
That led to two further investigations into his conduct by media outlets.
In June 2018, a joint ABC–Fairfax investigation reported an incident in Yemen during which a handcuffed man was kicked off a cliff, then dragged to a creek, and executed on Sept. 11, 2012.
Related Stories
1/8/2025
4/11/2025
Then, in June 2023, the ABC reported allegations that Roberts-Smith directed another Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) soldier to kill an elderly imam during an August 2012 operation in Afghanistan.
In August 2018, Roberts-Smith commenced defamation proceedings against Nine Entertainment publications and journalists Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters over the initial reporting of his actions.
But in 2023, after a lengthy civil trial, Justice Anthony Besanko found the newspapers had successfully proved—to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities—that Roberts-Smith was complicit in the murder of four unarmed civilians while serving in the SAS in Afghanistan, as well as bullying and threatening colleagues and intimidating a woman with whom he was having an affair.
Due to the gravity of the allegations, Justice Besanko followed the
Australian Army soldiers from the 5th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment at the range in Camp Qargha, Afghanistan. Courtesy Australian Defence Force.
The judge also found that the former SASR corporal machine-gunned a man with a prosthetic leg, which he then encouraged soldiers to use as a drinking vessel, and that, on the same day in 2009, he also ordered the execution of an elderly prisoner to 'blood the rookie' during a raid on a compound known as Whiskey 108.
Having already stepped down from his role at Seven West Media in 2021, Roberts-Smith then resigned.
However, the company's chairman, Kerry Stokes, agreed to pay the costs of the failed action, estimated then at $35 million, in a move that meant the network avoided having to hand over thousands of internal documents about the case.
Besanko, describing the move as 'unusual,' ordered that Stokes' private company, Australian Capital Equity (ACE), pay the costs on an indemnity basis.
Roberts-Smith appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, comprising three judges, in February 2024.
The Result
More than a year later, they have handed down their decision: the original decision stands.
That means Roberts-Smith, who was not present in court to hear the decision, remains liable for costs, which now include those of his failed appeal. He could, however, opt to ask for leave to take the matter to the High Court in a last-ditch attempt to clear his name.
Despite the finding of Justice Besanko in a civil court, Roberts-Smith has never been tried over the allegations in a criminal court.
In November 2018, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) announced that they 'received a referral to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers during the Afghanistan conflict,' and in April 2021, confirmed that they were also looking into reports that he had destroyed or hidden evidence relating to the investigation, which lasted five years.
However, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) later decided that the original AFP investigation could not support a prosecution because it would depend in part on information received from the Brereton inquiry.
That was an investigation by the Inspector General of the Defence Force into the conduct of Australian forces in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. But because the Inspector-General can use special coercive powers to question serving members of the ADF, the testimony obtained would be inadmissible in a civilian court.
1st Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (1 RAR) personnel in Kabul as part of Task Group Afghanistan's Force Protection Element (FPE). Courtesy Australian Defence Force. Their mission was to protect Australian and Coalition forces as they train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces. FPE 14 operated from the Hamid Karzai International Airport. Note: It is not implied that any of the soldiers pictured were involved in war crimes. Photo courtesy Australian Defence Force.
A total of 39 soldiers were implicated in the Brereton report, but Roberts-Smith is the only one to have been named, due to the Inspector General's decision to take the unusual step of making him the subject of what was termed an 'exceptional' referral to the AFP before having concluded the inquiry.
The CDPP's decision not to prosecute led to the establishment of a new joint task force, with personnel from the Office of the Special Investigator and a new team of AFP investigators to examine the allegations, but to date, no charges have been laid, and
In June 2023, Roberts-Smith was asked by reporters at Perth airport whether he would be apologising to the families of the victims affected by his actions in Afghanistan.
He replied, 'We haven't done anything wrong, so we won't be making any apologies,' and called Justice Besanko's finding that he had probably committed war crimes 'a terrible result and obviously the incorrect result.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Dupont Circle park to close for WorldPride weekend after all
Dupont Circle park to close for WorldPride weekend after all

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Dupont Circle park to close for WorldPride weekend after all

After days of uncertainty, the National Park Service shut down Dupont Circle for this weekend's Pride festivities, even after a community backlash to the idea and the D.C. police chief withdrawing her request to close it. Why it matters: It's a blow to WorldPride 2025 revelers, who were hoping the park in the heart of D.C.'s historic LGBTQ community would remain open. Driving the news: Citing D.C. police chief Pamela Smith's original request to close the park, NPS installed fencing early Friday morning. Fencing will remain until 6pm Sunday. U.S. Park Police said the temporary closure is necessary "to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Context: In 2023, NPS said the park was faced with $175,000 in vandalism and damage to the historic fountain after Pride weekend festivities. Last year, D.C. police said groups of juveniles got into fights and "engaged in unpermitted and illegal activities." Those incidents spurred Smith to send a closure request to NPS in April this year. But following public backlash, Smith rescinded that request on Tuesday. The latest: U.S. Park Police decided to move ahead with the closure anyway. "While some community leaders and residents have voiced their concerns for a closure of Dupont Circle to MPD the threat of violence," the agency wrote in a letter to NPS leadership Wednesday, "criminal acts and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD's original April 22, 2025 park closure request." The letter cites a "local DJ advertising and selling tickets to an unpermitted gathering/party in Dupont Circle following World Pride events" as one more reason to shut down the park. Between the lines: It's another pain point for festival-goers who are already upset with the Trump administration for anti-LGBTQ policies.

Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence
Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable for Cartel Violence

In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, he Supreme Court shut down Mexicos $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit. Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund. The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturers alleged failure to exercise "reasonable care" does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for "aiding and abetting" the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico. Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief "would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturers products" within the United States. A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court. The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexicos lawyers sought to invoke. The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans "have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border." It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies "are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply." In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit "faults the defendants for producing common firearms" and for "failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens." They made the case that "aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally." Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning. In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was "inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters." According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country. The unanimous decision marks the first ruling by the Supreme Court where the PLCAA is cited and could serve as precedent for protecting weapons manufacturers in future cases. The 9-0 ruling suggests strong judicial consensus on the limits of civil liability for gun manufacturers under federal law. It is seen as a win by gun rights activists, with the NRA arguing in their amicus brief on the case that "Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish Americas." Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each issued concurring opinions, with Jackson writing that Mexicos lawsuit targeted industry-wide practices that Congress has chosen not to prohibit and Thomas arguing that violations of U.S. law must be established in court for the PLCAA exceptions to be valid. James Eustis is an intern at RealClearPolitics. He studies politics at Washington & Lee University.

'I have killed for you': Husband's words crack nearly decade-old murder of missing nurse's aide

time6 hours ago

'I have killed for you': Husband's words crack nearly decade-old murder of missing nurse's aide

A husband's chilling words to his wife -- "I have killed for you" -- finally cracked a cold case murder that had haunted an Illinois town for nearly a decade. Bonnie Woodward, a 47-year-old mother of four, vanished from her workplace parking lot in Alton, Illinois, on June 25, 2010. A nurse's aide at Eunice Smith Nursing Home for 25 years, Woodward was last seen talking to a man after her shift. Witnesses described him as a white male with salt-and-pepper hair, driving a silver or gray Chevy Malibu. A new "20/20" episode, "I Have Killed For You," airing Friday, June 6, at 9 p.m. ET on ABC and streaming the next day on Hulu, examines the case. You can also get more behind-the-scenes of each week's episode by listening to "20/20: The After Show" weekly series right on your "20/20" podcast feed on Mondays, hosted by "20/20" co-anchor Deborah Roberts. Her red Chevy Avalanche was found abandoned with windows rolled down -- a detail that immediately alarmed her family. "She loved that truck. She worked really hard to get that truck. She absolutely wouldn't have just left it," her niece Rachel Lee told "20/20." The disappearance was particularly suspicious given that Woodward's 17-year-old stepdaughter, Heather, had recently run away from home. Eight days after Woodward vanished, Heather suddenly appeared at a local library, revealing she had been staying with a family from her church, the Carrolls. The investigation's first break came when Roger Carroll's fingerprints were found on Woodward's truck. Even though he and his car matched witnesses' descriptions of the man Woodward was seen talking to the day she vanished, he denied the evidence. "Then I've been framed," Carroll told detectives. "There's no way that my fingerprints are on that car door." Prosecutors determined there was not enough evidence to charge Carroll based on fingerprints alone. The case went cold until March 2018, when Carroll's wife Monica fled their home after an alleged domestic assault. While recounting the alleged violent incident to police, Monica told them that Carroll said, "I have killed for you." When police searched for him afterward, they found him in the woods, having attempted suicide by insulin injection. Carroll was arrested and charged with Woodward's murder and domestic abuse of Monica. The case broke wide open when Roger and Monica's son Nathan, then 24, was called to testify before a grand jury. With immunity granted, Nathan detailed what he said happened to Woodward eight years earlier. He told prosecutors that his father made him leave their family vacation early, while his mother stayed behind, and drive to the nursing home where Woodward worked. Later that day, while eating lunch at home, Nathan said he heard eight or nine gunshots. When he walked outside, he said he saw feet wearing tennis shoes and tan scrubs. What he said happened next was even more disturbing -- Nathan testified that his father had him help maintain a blaze in their backyard to burn Woodward's body. "They start a massive fire," Jennifer Mudge, the special prosecutor on the case, said. "It had to be stoked all night, all day, all night, every couple of hours, and Roger had Nathan help him do that." Nathan led investigators to three key locations on the Carroll property: where he said Woodward was shot, where he claimed her body was burned and the creek where he said her ashes were dumped. Police found 27 pieces of what they believed to be bone fragments although later tests could not determine if they were Woodward's remains. Nathan also testified that his father described Woodward as "a bad person" and that she was mean, aggressive and abusive to her stepdaughter Heather. Heather told police she did not know anything about her stepmother's disappearance and murder. Despite not having a body, prosecutors secured a conviction in Woodward's case on March 16, 2020. Carroll was sentenced to 65 years in prison -- 40 years for first-degree murder, plus 25 years for using a firearm. The domestic abuse charge was dropped by prosecutors. Carroll is appealing his conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court granted permission for the appeal, which is likely to be argued this fall. "When I heard the jury found him guilty, that was the blessing to my ears to hear," Gary Wilmurth Sr., Woodward's boyfriend, told "20/20." "Roger Carroll robbed her kids, her grandkids, friends, family. But we won't never forget her, and we won't forget him." For Mudge, the verdict carried a deeper meaning. "Bonnie, finally, she could be at rest," she told "20/20." "I don't believe in the word closure. It doesn't exist in my mind. But Bonnie can now rest peacefully." If you need help or need help supporting someone else, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or text START to 88788 or chat online at All calls are toll-free and confidential. The hotline is available 24/7. If you are struggling with thoughts of suicide or worried about a friend or loved one, call or text the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 for free, confidential emotional support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store