Dog shot: Nine suspects Ben Roberts-Smith ‘colluded’ with SAS mates over bizarre story
Nine newspapers claim Ben Roberts-Smith may have “colluded” with witnesses over a false story involving a dead dog - but the elite soldier calls it a baseless conspiracy.
Nine’s lawyers claim Ben Roberts-Smith and four former squadmates may have “colluded” to cook up false evidence before a strange story about a shot dog revealed their “fraud”.
But the Victoria Cross recipient says the newspapers are trying to prejudice his defamation lawsuit and the public by accusing him of a baseless conspiracy.
Nicholas Owens SC, barrister for Nine, wants access to confidential documents between four SAS soldiers and the legal team of Mr Roberts-Smith in the high stakes defamation trial.
Nine has claimed Mr Roberts-Smith is a war criminal, abuser and bully and is arguing a truth defence while the Victoria Cross recipient denies every allegation against him.
Mr Owens, on Friday, told a court the four soldiers and Mr Roberts-Smith had all filed outlines of evidence that contained the same “highly specific” and false claim at the beginning of the case.
The accusation centres around an Afghan Partner Force Commander known only as Person 12.
Nine claims Person 12 executed an unarmed Afghan on the orders of Mr Roberts-Smith at Khaz Oruzgan in 2012.
Mr Roberts-Smith and the four SAS soldiers, in their legal documents, all said Person 12 was not even on the mission because he had been banished from working with the SAS, the court heard on Friday.
Person 12 had been removed from the SAS, according to the soldiers’ outlines, because he had shot a dog and the bullet ricocheted and injured an Australian soldier, Mr Owens said.
Mr Owens told the court Mr Roberts-Smith and the four SAS would have delivered a “knockout blow” if they showed Person 12 was not at Khaz Oruzgan.
“Each of these witnesses… positively identified a specific individual, Person 12, shot the dog, positively identified Person 12 was removed, positively identified as a result he was replaced by (another Wakunish commander),” Mr Owens said.
“None of those things are right.”
Mr Owens told Justice Wendy Abraham, on Friday, there was no documentary proof Person 12 shot the dog.
The person who shot at the dog was an ordinary soldier, not a commander like Person 12, Mr Owens said.
Last week another SAS soldier, Person 31, told the court that it was a different Afghan soldier who shot the dog.
The four SAS soldiers and Mr Roberts-Smith all falsely attributing the dog shot incident to Person 12 was more likely collusion rather than an honest mistake, Nine argued.
Mr Roberts-Smith’s barrister, Arthur Moses SC, told the court he was concerned Nine was attempting to “prejudice the court and the public”.
“There are serious issues about who Person 12 is, they can’t even get it right about who Person 12 is,” he told the court.
He denounced Nine’s claims as a baseless and unethical attempt to cast Mr Roberts-Smith as part of a “conspiracy”.
“Behind every tree there is a dark shadow according to (Nine), so they think the worst,” Mr Moses said.
Mr Roberts-Smith, while in the witness stand, seemed to depart from his legal document when asked about the dog shot.
The Victoria Cross recipient told the court he heard Person 12 had shot the dog but another Wakunish soldier had been the one stood down.
He maintained Person 12 was not at Khaz Oruzgan.
Nine have already made a significant error of their own with Person 12, the court heard.
The newspapers originally claimed in their own court documents that Person 12 was present when Mr Roberts-Smith allegedly kicked an unarmed Afghan down a cliff and ordered he be executed.
The newspapers now concede Person 12 was not on that mission at all.
“He wasn’t there, he hadn’t even joined the rotation,” Mr Owens told the court on Friday.
Mr Moses said it was “gobsmackingly hypocritical” of Nine to accuse Mr Roberts-Smith of a conspiracy when they had themselves made errors about Person 12.
Justice Abraham will hand down her decision at a later date.