Ben Roberts-Smith’s parents say war veteran is ‘distraught’ at defamation ruling

Ben Roberts-Smith’s parents have said the fallen war hero is “distraught” at being judged a murderer and war criminal in his defamation trial, and believes “the truth would prevail”.

Fallen Australian war hero and Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith is “distraught” at being judged a murderer and war criminal in his defamation trial.

The SAS veteran’s parents Len and Sue issued a joint statement saying their son was “distraught” adding that “he believed the truth would prevail.”

At the end of 110 days of evidence in the civil defamation case Mr Roberts-Smith brought against three Nine Entertainment newspapers Justice Anthony Besanko found various imputations conveyed by the publishers, which contained allegations of murder and war crimes were substantially true.

“We were and are of course quite shocked and devastated,” former Western Australia Supreme Court judge Len Roberts-Smith and his wife said.

“It was an unexpected and devastating outcome.”

Ben Roberts-Smith leaving the Federal Court in Sydney. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Christian Gilles

Justice Besanko found the newspapers had substantially proved imputations which alleged Mr Roberts-Smith had unlawfully killed four unarmed Afghan prisoners while serving with the SAS between 2009 and 2012.

He also found he had bullied other soldiers but dismissed the publishers’ truth defence to two other murder allegations and claims he had struck his mistress, instead finding that they had established contextual truth in answer to these untrue imputations. Meaning, the publishers had established matters which tarnished the soldier’s reputation to such an extent, that the publication of these untrue imputations did not further harm his reputation.

Ben Roberts-Smith’s parents Len and Sue Roberts Smith arriving at the Federal Court in Sydney. Picture NCA Newswire/ Gaye Gerard

“We believe our son and believe in him. He is not a liar,” the couple said. “He did not murder anyone and committed no war crimes. He did not engage in any kind of domestic abuse.”

Mr Roberts-Smith remains Australia’s most decorated war hero and until the newspapers began publishing allegations against him was in high demand as a public speaker and advocate for veterans and domestic abuse victims.

“The allegations found by the judge to probably be true, have destroyed our son’s life and have had a profound impact on our whole family,” Mr and Mrs Roberts-Smith said.

Ben Roberts-Smith is said to be “distraught” at the ruling in his defamation case. Picture: Paul Kane/Getty Images

Ben Roberts-Smith at an afternoon tea reception for members of the Victoria Cross and George Cross Association in 2014. Picture: John Phillips WPA-Pool/Getty Images

Mr Roberts-Smith did not attend Federal Court to hear the damning judgment, instead opting to remain away from Australia in Bali.

After the judgment was delivered he resigned from his position as general manager of Seven West Media in Queensland.

Seven’s owner Kerry Stokes had underwritten his legal case with Mr Roberts-Smith offering his Victoria Cross as surety. His lawyers are now considering grounds for appeal.

“Since the judgment the vilification of our son has become even more frenzied,” Mr and Mrs Roberts-Smith said.

“Other witnesses’ evidence was only rumour or reconstruction given after many years. One witness (who personally saw nothing himself) dramatically spoke of his “dreams” about Ben and channelled Colonel Kurtze in“Apocalypse Now!”

The couple pointed to the “extraordinary restrictions” placed on the case, much of which was conducted behind closed doors due to national security concerns, that prevented his legal team from “gaining access to important evidence or being allowed to put relevant evidence before the judge.”

Mr Roberts-Smith has not been charged with any criminal offence, which is tested under the much more exacting rule of true beyond reasonable doubt.

Originally published as Ben Roberts-Smith’s parents say war veteran is ‘distraught’ at defamation ruling