https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04en9wllpxo



2 hours ago

His defamation case - which some have dubbed "the trial of the century" in Australia -
lasted over 120 days and is now rumoured to have cost up to A$35m ($22.5m; £16.9m).




A panel of three Federal Court judges on Friday unanimously upheld the original judgement, though Mr Roberts-Smith has said he will appeal the decision to the High Court of Australia "immediately".

"I continue to maintain my innocence and deny these egregious spiteful allegations," he said in a statement.

Mr Roberts-Smith, who left the defence force in 2013, has not been charged over any of the claims in a criminal court, where there is a higher burden of proof.

The former special forces corporal sued three Australian newspapers over a series of articles alleging serious misconduct while he was deployed in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012 as part of a US-led military coalition.

Has he lost all available way too appeal now?

He was only a corporal, who is/ was responsible for this force?

Why are they being protected. They need to be named and shamed.

Not just a corporal.

The little I know suggests a terrible lack of command over there.

Undisciplined, poor hygiene, no leadership of any quality.

That’s why the Taliban won in the end.

Don’t blame the soldiers. Look closely at the quality of leadership that allow these crimes to occur.

Daves2017 wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 4:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 4:51pm:


The poor bugger is nothing more than a scapegoat imo

Daves2017 wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 5:47pm:



They shot Breaker Morant for executing POWs.

Big Ben would have been better off not bringing defamation proceedings and remained in dignified silence....He obviously believes he did nothing wrong???

philperth2010 wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 8:44pm:

He didn't. He killed the enemy he was sent to kill

Frank wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 8:46pm:


It's costing him a lot of money....Like I said he believes he is innocent....I have not taken any side!!!

No DIRECT evidence shows he murdered anybody.  Read it.

Matters like this shouldn't be at such huge cost... a simple application to a court and the only proof required is that the person making the statement prove truth.

Even when a person 'wins' such a case, the public generally think it's only about money, and the entire process has been sullied by 'scoundrels with money' using it to cover over their faults.... 'the last resort of scoundrels'.....

NOBODY actually saw the man murder anyone.  A body or bodies reported LATER by locals does not prove the deceased was a victim of murder by an Allied trooper - there is no forensic evidence to link weapons and even calibres etc... and it is not unknown for the 'locals' to complain of a body killed by someone else so they could collect blood money for the killing.

Belgarion wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 10:19pm:



I posted the link to the Brereton Report - nowhere does it offer a single direct witness.  Balance of probabilities does not cut a real case - 'balance of probabilities' means whoever gets to decidce can be as prejudiced and stupid as he/she likes.

I started off thinking he was likely guilty - but have ended up on the other side.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry...

Bobby. wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 10:25pm:


WADR - none of them was a direct witness.

Don't even bother with blowing up at a dope who forgot his gun oil and thus endangered everyone - what would Paddy Mayne - like myself part descended from The O'Neill himself - think about that?  Sure, a COMBAT officer would quietly say - 'Don't EVER Do That Again!  Understood?' ... but the patrol leader would make sure the message got through, right?

Frank doesn't think the rule of law should apply to the people killed because they don't really qualify as people to him.

Less than.

Anything goes.

Same as piggy-eyes rape in parliament, no criminal proof but enough to establish as probable.  So it's not defamation to say he did the act.

Daves2017 wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 4:42pm:


This is being done ever so cautiously slowly, agonisingly slowly....I believe the Military are holding off until he has exhausted all avenues of appeal before it launches a prosecution, and when that happens, you watch the Officer rats head for their runs.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2025 at 2:42pm:


bang bang you're a moron

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2025 at 7:19pm:


So take it up with the authorities

greggerypeccary wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 9:09am:



Take it up with your ABC.

I’m under the impression it’s not costing him anything.
His all but broke.

Corporal’s aren’t exactly well paid.

Kelly stokes the channel 7 owning billionaire is picking up the tab for reason unknown?


“ Major Gook was put in charge of a new unit: the 1st Special Air Service ... In early 2007 Australia refocused its efforts and in April ”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fitzgibbon

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 4:09pm:


So you think people shouldn't fight against allegations against them?

Take out the most visible.

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 4:40pm:


I'm glad he did 'fight.'  It brought him undone, because he did the deeds, and for no other reason.  When yer own mates in the Army desert you, you should know the best thing to do is bunker down in retirement with your VC still on your chest, and just ignore the noise.

Nah, BRS thought he was above all that because Daddy is Daddy and Daddy has powerful mates with very long pockets.

Zero sympathy from me and full on antagonism/scorn/derision/get the bastard, big ~ and also get all the bastards above him who allowed the climate to exist.  He will be done by the Military when he has exhausted all appeals.  At the very least, the VC will be taken off his chest, and he will also be in a prison.

He cannot survive (unless the High Court does something extraordinarily remarkable) the scathing, fatal findings of the original Court and those of the Appeal Court.

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 5:28pm:



Ben is the new Breaker Morant.

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 5:31pm:



You are the one said take it up with the authorities.

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 5:53pm:


I know you are a moron so I'll type slowly. Leeroy asked why the others weren't named in court. I merely suggested he ask the authorities if he wanted to know why.

Do you get it yet ya dumbarse? Or do I need to use braille to explain it?

Biggest donger wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 6:25pm:


Sorry, you're right. it was Lee himself ... and still he's struggling

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 6:44pm:


and i told you to ask the authorities why he wasn't named you dumbarse. It's no good asking me why someone else didn't do something. 
And with so many morons, it's easy to confuse one for the other.

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 7:46pm:



well who do you think was going to pillar him? the people you quoted who had already written about him?

Christ you're a moron

lee wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 7:46pm:


you don't confuse me with anyone. Thanks,

John Smith wrote on May 16^th, 2025 at 8:48pm:


Yeah you would say something that dumb.

John Smith wrote on May 17^th, 2025 at 9:57am:


When did they come into existence?

There was a 1 off in 1945 with the Nuremburg Trials for the Nazis who gassed & murdered 6 million Jewish civilians - fairly obvious.

Then the UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993.

In 1994 the  International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Where nearly 1 million people were either murdered, bashed/attacked & raped.

The supposedly independent International Criminal Court wasn't established until 2002.

They usually don't deal with 1 soldier over 1 alleged incident.

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2025 at 5:28pm:


Mates? ..... hardly. Bunch of piss weak backstabbers.

Typical of the types of young blokes today. Don't like being told what to do.

I have heard Smith wasn't an easy man to get on with - but that's probably the sort of NCO Patrol Commander that's required in a conflict zone where it's difficult to know who the enemy is.

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2025 at 11:09am:



If you were worried about forum members here pilloring him on here, why did you announce it on this forum??

Dumb as dogsh1t you are

Some post stuff about why I have largely withdrawn from debate here at OzPol.  The comments from Lee and Gnads are very good examples why.

Just pointless.

Gnads wrote on May 19^th, 2025 at 12:55pm:

Irrelevant when it was started.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2025 at 5:06pm:



He hasn't been named for the maroons like you to pillory him. Note: Not pillar. You pillock.

chimera wrote on May 19^th, 2025 at 1:50pm:


Dipstick

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2025 at 5:09pm:



John left school when he was 15.   

Aussie wrote on May 20^th, 2025 at 1:26pm:


Really? attention that? ... maybe it went over your head?

I thought you'd have got my drift.

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2025 at 1:41pm:



then why did you say that was why you wouldn't report him to the authorities?

Frank wrote on May 20^th, 2025 at 9:02pm:


having your periods again frannie?

Ooh Australia Institute. Impressive.

Civil standard of proof and he wants war crimes tribunals which require more, a criminal finding. Why doesn't he want a criminal finding on Ben Roberts-Smith, it would make the task easier.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-20/ben-roberts-smith-federal-court-release-r...




By Ethan Rix

Topic:Courts

Tue 20 May


In short:

The Federal Court has released its reasons for dismissing Ben Roberts-Smith's defamation appeal around war crimes last Friday.

The justices found the evidence was "sufficiently cogent to support the findings" the war veteran "murdered four Afghan men" on deployment.

What's next?
Mr Roberts-Smith said he would seek a High Court challenge to appeal dismissal to reopen the matter with fresh evidence.


The Federal Court has published its reasons for dismissing war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith's bid to overturn his defamation loss, which found the Victoria Cross recipient complicit in war crimes while deployed to Afghanistan.

The former Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) corporal launched an appeal after losing his defamation case against three Nine-owned newspapers following a civil trial, which ran for more than 100 days over 2021 and 2022.

Mr Roberts-Smith's appeal, which was heard in February last year, was unanimously thrown out by the full bench of the Federal Court on Friday.

Federal Court Justices Geoffrey Kennett, Nye Perram and Anna Katzmann found "the evidence was sufficiently cogent to support the findings that

He could become Witness L like in the Timor bugging case and get himself jail time on national security grounds.

Bobby. wrote on May 22^nd, 2025 at 5:45pm:


Civil trial, different standards of proof.

lee wrote on May 22^nd, 2025 at 6:19pm:


Deliberately.

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2025 at 5:27pm:


Quote:


Say no more.   

Aussie wrote on May 23^rd, 2025 at 8:38am:


Yep. As I guessed. You don't know as much as claimed.