**Ben Roberts-Smith's long-running defamation battle concludes with a federal court ruling that upholds claims of war crimes, raising questions about accountability in military conduct.**
**Australian Soldier's War Crimes Defamation Appeal Denied: Landmark Verdict Stands**
**Australian Soldier's War Crimes Defamation Appeal Denied: Landmark Verdict Stands**
**Defamation judgment affirms allegations against decorated veteran Ben Roberts-Smith as true, sealing his controversial legacy.**
Australia's most-decorated living soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, has faced a significant legal defeat as he lost an appeal against a pivotal defamation ruling that deemed allegations of his involvement in war crimes factual. In a high-profile civil case that has been dubbed “the trial of the century” in Australia, a judge found in 2023 that Roberts-Smith had committed serious misconduct, including the murder of four unarmed Afghan individuals during his deployment as part of a US-led military effort from 2009 to 2012.
Roberts-Smith, celebrated nationally after receiving the Victoria Cross for his courageous acts against Taliban insurgents, contested the verdict, arguing that the judge made critical legal missteps. On Friday, a panel of three Federal Court judges upheld the original ruling, reinforcing that the evidence presented was "substantially true."
The 46-year-old cited that the killings occurred legally in the heat of combat and maintained his innocence on all counts, despite not facing formal criminal charges where the burden of proof is significantly greater. His lawsuit targeted three major Australian newspapers, which had published a series of articles in 2018 detailing his alleged wartime misconduct.
The defamation trial, lasting more than 120 days, has reportedly cost up to A$35 million (approximately $22.5 million) and examined not only the wartime allegations but also claims of bullying fellow soldiers and threatening witnesses. Justice Antony Besanko, who presided over the initial ruling, commented that Roberts-Smith had not met the presumption of innocence standard required for reconsideration.
Roberts-Smith's legal team argued that the initial judge should have given more weight to this presumption, which is especially crucial when addressing serious allegations that carry grave consequences. However, the appellate court rejected this claim, effectively sealing a deeply contentious chapter in Australian military history and raising ongoing discussions about accountability in armed forces.
The fallout from this landmark case may have lasting implications for how claims of military misconduct are pursued and reported, challenging perceptions of heroism in the context of war. A detailed update to this breaking story will follow as more information becomes available.
