“Target on his back”: Ben Roberts-Smith’s spectacular closing remarks
After 100 days of testimony, cross-examination, and dissection of evidence, Ben Robert-Smith’s defamation trial is at the beginning of the end.
Lawyers representing the veteran began their closing submissions by accusing The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Canberra Times, and three journalists of embarking on a “sustained campaign” to falsely portray him as a war criminal, bully and domestic abuser.
“Mr Roberts-Smith was an exceptional soldier; highly organised, disciplined, a leader, resourceful and extraordinarily brave,” his barrister, Arthus Moses SC, told the Federal Court on Monday.
“He did not seek, nor did he want any recognition for performing his duties as a member of the Australian Defence Force. What he did not expect is, having been awarded the Victoria Cross, he would have a target on his back.”
Mr Moses told Justice Anthony Besanko, who has been overseeing the proceedings, that the trial had been called “a great many things”, including the “trial of the century”, a “proxy war-crimes trial” and an “attack” on press freedom.
“It is none of these,” he said.
“This has been a case about how Mr Roberts-Smith, the most decorated Australian soldier, and a man with a high reputation for courage, skill and decency in soldiering, had that reputation destroyed by the respondents.”
The articles, published in mid-2018, claimed that Mr Roberts-Smith killed or was complicit in the killing of six unarmed prisoners during his deployment in Afghanistan with the SAS.
It was alleged he also bullied other soldiers and physically abused a woman he was having an affair with.
The Victoria Cross recipient has emphatically denied all allegations, while the newspapers have relied on a truth defence during the trial, calling dozens of current and former SAS soldiers to testify.
Mr Moses began his address by denouncing the conduct of the Nine newspapers, claiming they refused to back down from errors in their stories and taking aim at the evidence provided by three of their witnesses: Person 7, Person 14, and Andrew Hastie, a former soldier-turned politician.
"The publications of the respondents were based on rumour, hearsay and contradictory accounts from former colleagues who were, some, jealous, and/or obsessed with Mr Roberts-Smith,” Mr Moses said, adding that Mr Hastie was “obsessed” with Mr Roberts-Smith but failed to provide evidence to support the murder claims.
Mr Hastie, who served with Mr Roberts-Smith briefly in 2012, was called to testify about a mission in Syahchow and claims that the veteran soldier had ordered a junior soldier, referred to as Person 66, to execute an Afghan captive during the mission.
The MP told the court he was at Syahchow that day and saw a dead body with an AK-47 rifle, and that Person 66 looked uncharacteristically uneasy.
He claimed that Mr Roberts-Smith walked past and said, “Just a couple more dead c***s”.
However, Person 66 refused to testify about the mission on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr Moses claimed there was no evidence to support Nine’s claim of murder, and that the “sensationalist” stories came from bitter and jealous SAS insiders who wanted to take Mr Roberts-Smith down.
"What is apparent is that both journalists (Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters) have mounted a sustained campaign to unfairly create a belief that Mr Roberts-Smith had committed war crimes in Afghanistan, including during the course of these proceedings," he said.
Each side has been allocated four days for a closing address.
Image: Getty Images