The writ

Ben Roberts-Smith sued three newspapers for defamation over reporting that he was complicit in the murder of Afghans. He won nothing. On 1 June 2023, a judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that four of those murder allegations were substantially true, and that Roberts-Smith had lied to the court and colluded with his own witnesses.

Almost three years later, on 7 April 2026, he was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder, allegations he denies and that remain untested. In between, the men compelled to give evidence against him, Andrew Hastie among them, one of 21 subpoenaed witnesses, are the ones now cast as the villains of the story. This is the desk’s reading: the smear inverts a verdict a court already delivered.

01The weapon

Ben Roberts-Smith held the Victoria Cross and was, before the charges now against him, the most-decorated living Australian war veteran. ¹³

In 2018 he sued The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times over reporting that he was complicit in the murder of Afghans. ²³

A defamation writ is meant to defend a reputation against a false story. This is the desk’s reading, not a sourced fact: in this case the writ was turned the other way, deployed to call the reporters liars in open court. What the court actually found is set out below.

02What the court found

On 1 June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko delivered his judgment. He found, on the balance of probabilities, the civil standard of proof, not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, that the newspapers had proved the substance of four murder allegations. ²⁶

In 2009, at a compound known as Whiskey 108, Besanko found a captured man with a prosthetic leg was killed, and, in what was described as “blooding the rookie”, that Roberts-Smith ordered a junior soldier to execute an elderly captive who posed no threat. In 2012, at Darwan village, Besanko found Roberts-Smith kicked Ali Jan, an unarmed and handcuffed Afghan man, off a cliff, and was complicit in his killing. And at Chinartu in 2012, Besanko found he ordered an Afghan soldier to execute a prisoner. ⁶

Besanko also found Roberts-Smith lied to the court, colluded with his own witnesses, assaulted detained Afghan nationals and bullied junior colleagues. ⁶

The 2018 reporting had originally alleged Roberts-Smith was complicit in the murder of six Afghans; the court found four of those allegations substantially true. ²³⁶

Roberts-Smith lost the case. It was dismissed, and his appeal to the Full Federal Court was dismissed in May 2025. ¹⁶

None of this is a criminal conviction. A civil finding on the balance of probabilities is a lower standard of proof than a criminal court applies, and it carries no criminal penalty. That distinction matters for what follows.

03The witness

Andrew Hastie, the Liberal MP for Canning, a former SAS captain, was one of 21 SAS veterans of the war in Afghanistan subpoenaed as a witness in the defamation action. He did not volunteer. He was compelled by law to give evidence. ⁵

In his evidence, Hastie described a “fairly well-established rumour” within the regiment that Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan man off a cliff, the same incident Besanko would later find substantially true at Darwan. ⁵⁴

Crikey later asked whether Hastie’s evidence had been “weaponised against him”. ⁴

04The charge

On Tuesday 7 April 2026, Roberts-Smith, 47, was arrested at Sydney Airport by the Australian Federal Police. He was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder, in connection with the deaths of five people in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. ¹

Roberts-Smith denies the allegations. ¹ He is entitled, like anyone charged, to the presumption of innocence. The five criminal charges are untested allegations, distinct from the four civil findings a court has already made against him on the lower, balance-of-probabilities standard. Four and five are not the same list, and this article does not treat them as one.

05The inversion

After the charges were laid, Hastie did not attack Roberts-Smith and did not claim credit for the case a court had already decided. He asked, instead, for restraint.

This is the desk’s reading. Hastie did not choose to give evidence in 2022; he was subpoenaed, one witness among 21. A court has already found, on the civil standard, that four of the allegations his testimony touched on were substantially true. The men who now brand the compelled witness a traitor are not disputing a fact a court has found. They are trying to reverse a verdict that has already been delivered.

The smear inverts the verdict.

If it’s a rort, we cover it.