It was branded the ‘trial of the century’ and a 'proxy war crimes trial'.
On Thursday, one of Australia’s longest-running defamation cases finally came to an end, with the judgment in the case brought by Ben Roberts-Smith against three major newspapers delivered by a Federal Court judge.
Justice Anthony Besanko found that a number of 2018 reports published by The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times were substantially true about a number of war crimes committed by Mr Roberts-Smith.
According to legal experts, the stakes were high and it was not just the reputation of one of the most lauded Australian soldiers in modern history at stake.
The case was also a test of Australia’s defamation laws and the defence of truth, which the newspapers relied on during the trial.
Who is Ben Roberts-Smith?
He is Australia’s most decorated living soldier and a veteran of the Afghanistan war.
In 2006, Mr Roberts-Smith was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions as a patrol scout in Afghanistan, and in 2011 he was awarded the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest military honour, for his actions saving colleagues in an operation in search of a senior Taliban commander in 2010. He is now among an elite group - one of just 101 Australian soldiers to receive the Victoria Cross.
After life in the military, he started his own consultancy, before launching a media career with the Seven Network, where held roles including the general manager of the network’s Brisbane and regional Queensland divisions.
Why did he sue the newspapers?
In 2020, the former SAS corporal sued The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times in the Federal Court over 2018 reports claiming he committed war crimes in Afghanistan including murder, and acts of bullying and domestic violence.
The 43-year-old denied all claims of wrongdoing, while the newspapers sought to defend them as true.
The newspapers accused Mr Roberts-Smith of unacceptable use of force against unarmed Afghans from 2009 to 2012.
Mr Roberts-Smith said the publications wrongly portrayed him as a war criminal and a murderer, he denied all the allegations and sought damages for harm.
Mr Roberts-Smith's barrister, Arthur Moses, SC described his client as a highly-trained and experienced soldier whose reputation of courage, skill and decency had been "destroyed" by the media reports.
Mr Moses told the court elite soldiers who gave evidence against Mr Roberts-Smith were liars and gossips who were bitter and jealous over the ex-corporal's award of Australia's highest military honour.
Mr Roberts-Smith sought aggravated damages of up to 10 years or more in lost income from jobs including a partnership with consulting firm PwC and lucrative public speaking gigs.
He was not charged over any of this alleged conduct and no findings have been made against him in a criminal court.
How did the newspapers seek to defend themselves?
By relying on a defence of truth, one of the options in Australian defamation cases. The newspapers maintained their claims were true and put forward witnesses, including soldiers and Afghan civilians, to support their claims.
Mr Roberts-Smith’s ex-wife Emma gave evidence over two days against her ex-husband on behalf of the media outlets. A number of soldiers, some serving, also gave evidence.
For one of the allegations, the newspapers relied on the eyewitness account of a former SAS soldier who said he watched the former corporal kick an unarmed prisoner off a cliff before the man was executed below.
Mr Roberts-Smith, who funded his lawsuit partly with a loan from billionaire Seven boss Kerry Stokes, claimed the opposition witnesses were fantastists and disgruntled failed soldiers.
Why does the case matter?
Legal experts say that while the civil hearing focused on reputational damage brought by a series of 2018 articles, it effectively played out as the country's first war crimes trial despite not being one.
"Because the principle defence here is truth, what the trial has become is a de facto war crimes trial," said David Rolph, a professor at University of Sydney law school who specialises in media law.
The defamation trial spanned over a year, hearing from over 40 witnesses, and wrapped up after eight days of closing addresses on 27 July 2022.
The legal bill alone from the case is estimated to have blown out to about $25 million.
Members of the Australian Defence Force can access the Defence All-hours Support Line on 1800 628 036. Open Arms provides free and confidential counselling and support for current and former serving ADF members and their families on 1800 011 046.
Readers seeking support can contact Lifeline crisis support on 13 11 14, Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467 and Soldier On Australia on 1300 620 380.
