Top SAS officer casts doubt on war crime allegations against Ben Roberts-Smith

One of the most senior members of the elite Special Air Service has stepped into the witness box to testify at the trial.

One of the most senior members of the elite Special Air Service has stepped into the witness box to testify at the defamation trial of Ben Roberts-Smith about alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

Mr Roberts-Smith is suing Nine newspapers after they published articles claiming he was involved in six executions while deployed with the SAS.

Nine insists the articles are true, the Victoria Cross recipient denies every allegation.

The marathon trial’s 40th and likely final witness, codenamed Person 81, stepped into Sydney’s Federal Court on Wednesday following weeks of anticipation.

The high ranking SAS officer, who cannot be identified, was subpoenaed to testify about one particular set of war crime allegations dating back to Easter Sunday, 2009.

More than two dozen SAS soldiers plus specialists were under the command of Person 81 when they marched toward a recently bombed Taliban compound known as Whiskey 108 on that day.

Drone imagery of the compound known as Whiskey 108 which was raided by SAS soldiers including Ben Roberts-Smith in 2009. Supplied: Federal Court

Nine has claimed two Afghan men were found hiding in a tunnel beneath the compound – now a crucial dispute in the case.

That is because the papers have further claimed Mr Roberts-Smith took those prisoners, executed one, and watched as a “rookie” SAS soldier executed the second.

The Afghans were detainees, known as PUCs in military shorthand, and their deaths amount to war crime murders, Nine claims.

Person 81, under questioning by Mr Roberts-Smith’s barrister, Arthur Moses SC, told the court no one had told him any Afghans were found in the tunnel and he didn‘t see any prisoners taken at the site himself either.

“Did you see any Afghan fighting-aged males come out of the tunnel at Whiskey 108?” Mr Moses asked.

“No,” Person 81 replied.

“Did you see any Afghan fighting-aged males being PUC’d near the tunnel at Whiskey 108?”

“No,” the SAS officer repeated.

Person 81 said he did see Afghans, alive, at Whiskey 108 but could not recall any specifics about their identity.

“One distinct memory I have is just a lady sweeping,” he told the court.

The tunnel beneath Whiskey 108 which is now a point of contention in the lawsuit – specifically if any Afghan men were hiding inside. Supplied: Federal Court

One of the Afghans killed at Whiskey 108 had a fake leg which was taken as a trophy by the SAS and turned into a macabre drinking vessel, the court has heard.

Mr Roberts-Smith denies Nine’s claims that he grabbed the Afghan after he was detained, marched him outside the compound and executed him with a machine gun.

Instead, Mr Roberts-Smith testified, he shot the one-legged Afghan because he was an armed insurgent moving quickly through the chaotic battlefield.

Person 81, on Wednesday, said he did not see the one-legged man alive but did see death at Whiskey 108.

“I saw body parts, parts of bodies in the rubble around rocket paraphernalia,” he told the court.

“The only body I saw was in transit from Whiskey 108 to Whiskey 109.”

“I was told, post that, that he had a prosthetic leg, but I’m not sure if I picked that up at the time.”

Person 81 told the court that he did not hear any allegations of wrongdoing by his men in the aftermath of Whiskey 108 or, indeed, for years after the mission.

If such allegations had been raised, Person 81 told the court, he would have reported them up the chain of command.

It was only in a “recent inquiry” that Person 81 claims he heard the allegation of men hiding in the tunnel being executed.

Lawyers for the Commonwealth have swiftly moved to suppress any information about what was discussed behind the closed doors of the Brereton Inquiry, the government’s inquiry into war crime allegations.

The inquiry concluded there was “credible information” about war crimes committed by the SAS but, as yet, there have been no charges by the investigators following up on the findings.