Top Soldier loses war crimes defamation Case Appeal

The most decorated living soldier Ben Roberts-Smith of Australia has lost an appeal against a milestone tricky judgment in which he was committed war crimes.

A judge in 2023 ruled that news articles claiming that the Victoria cross-receiver had killed four unarmed Afghans, but Mr. Roberts-Smith had argued that the judge had made legal mistakes.

The civil process was the first time in history, every court assessed claims of war crimes by Australian troops.

A panel of three judges of the federal court confirmed the original judgment on Friday.

Mr. Roberts-Smith, who left the defense in 2013, maintains his innocence and was not charged with one of the claims in a criminal bank, where there is a higher burden of proof.

The former Corporal Special Forces has sued three Australian newspapers due to a series of articles about serious misconduct while he was deployed in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012 as part of a military coalition led by the US.

The moment the articles were published in 2018, Mr. Roberts-Smith was considered a national hero, after he had received the highest military honor of Australia for the on his own overwhelming Taliban hunters who attacked his Special Air Service (SAS) Peloton.

The 46-year-old claimed that the alleged murders took place legally during the fight or did not take place at all, and claimed that the papers ruined his life with their reports.

His defamation – which some have called “the trial of the century” in Australia – lasted more than 120 days and is now reportedly a $ 35 million ($ 22.5 million; £ 16.9 million).

In June 2023, the Federal Court of Justice Antony Besanko threw away the case against age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times and ruled that it was “substantial true” that Mr Roberts-Smith had killed unarmed Afghan prisoners and had bullied Fellow soldiers.

He also discovered that Mr. Roberts-Smith Loog to hide his misconduct and endangered witnesses.

Additional accusations that he had beaten his beloved, had threatened a pear and committed two other murders, were not proven to the norm “Balance between probably” needed in civil matters.

The “heart” of the case was that Justice Besanko did not give enough weight to the suspicion of Mr. Roberts-Smith of innocence, his lawyer Bret Walker, SC.

There is a legal principle that judges are carefully obliged to deal with civil matters that entail serious accusations and in making findings that have serious consequences.

Mr. Walker argued that the evidence of the newspapers meant that the newspapers were not on the required standard.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published soon. Renew the page for the full version.

You can receive Breeknieuws on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News -app. You can also follow @Bbcbreaking on X To get the latest reports.