Disgraced soldier Ben Roberts-Smith suffers setback in defamation appeal over war crimes allegations

In a significant blow to Ben Roberts-Smith's legal battle, the Federal Court has dismissed a substantial portion of his attempts to gather evidence for his appeal against a defamation ruling that found he committed war crimes in Afghanistan. The former Special Air Service corporal's appeal stems from a defamation suit he launched against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and investigative journalist Nick McKenzie, following a series of exposés that detailed allegations of serious misconduct during his military service. The court previously ruled that there was ample evidence suggesting Roberts-Smith did in fact commit acts of murder and bullying, leading to the defamation judgment against him in June 2023. Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross, alleged that he had been wronged by these journalistic pieces and sought to reopen his appeal. Recently, he aimed to introduce new evidence, including recordings of conversations between McKenzie and a woman referred to as 'Person 17,' who is said to have had an affair with him. The conversation allegedly included discussions about how his ex-wife and her friend were briefing McKenzie on his legal strategies. However, this attempt was met with skepticism in court, as Justice Nye Perram characterized many of Roberts-Smith's subpoenas as overly broad and unwarranted, striking out several of them. The ruling to limit the subpoenas highlights the ongoing tension between news outlets and individuals seeking to contest unfavorable reporting. With McKenzie set to testify next week, it remains to be seen whether the introduction of this new evidence will change the course of Roberts-Smith's appeal. The legal battles surrounding veterans and allegations of misconduct remain deeply contentious in Australia, illuminating the challenges faced by those who aim to balance justice, accountability, and the protection of reputational rights in a public forum. The impact of Roberts-Smith’s allegations of war crimes not only affects his own reputation but also casts a shadow on the conduct of Australian troops abroad, leading to broader discussions on military ethics, accountability, and the necessary scrutiny of actions taken in foreign conflicts. The outcome of this case may have significant implications, both legally and in terms of public perception of military service and accountability, and serves as a critical reminder of the role of journalism in holding powerful figures accountable for their actions. In a society that values both free speech and responsible reporting, the results of Roberts-Smith's appeals will be closely monitored and debated.