Second former SAS soldier backs Ben Roberts-Smith in defamation case

A second former Special Air Service soldier has supported Ben Roberts-Smith in his Federal Court defamation case, backing the war veteran’s denial that he was involved in the alleged murder of Afghan prisoners.

Person 35, a friend of the decorated former soldier, gave evidence on Wednesday in Robert-Smith’s defamation suit against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times. His name cannot be revealed for national security reasons.

Ben Roberts-Smith outside the Federal Court in Sydney last month.Credit: Edwina Pickles

He was asked about key details on missions by the SAS in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2012, and corroborated the accounts given by Roberts-Smith. The decorated former soldier is suing the newspapers over a series of stories in 2018 that he says portray him as a war criminal.

The media outlets are seeking to rely on a defence of truth and have alleged Roberts-Smith killed an Afghan man in 2009 who was taken prisoner by the SAS after being pulled from a tunnel at a compound dubbed Whiskey 108.

The newspapers say Roberts-Smith also directed a “rookie” soldier, dubbed Person 4, to kill a second man pulled from the tunnel, after the order to kill the man was given officially by the men’s patrol commander, Person 5. Under the rules of engagement that bound the SAS, prisoners could not be killed. Person 5 has previously told the court that no men were found in the tunnel and he did not give that order.

Person 35 told the court on Wednesday that he heard a call on the troops’ radio system that a tunnel had been discovered at Whiskey 108. He said Roberts-Smith volunteered to clear the tunnel and he laughed at him because he “wasn’t going to fit”.

Person 35 said he himself had entered and cleared the tunnel, while another soldier, Person 29, covered the entry.

“Did you locate or observe any individuals in the tunnel?” Robert-Smith’s barrister, Arthur Moses, SC, asked. “No,” Person 35 replied. He said he found weapons in the tunnel.

Person 35 said the first time he heard the allegation that men had been found in that tunnel was in media reports in 2018. Roberts-Smith has previously told the court that no men were found in the tunnel. He said two Afghan men killed on that mission, including one shot by him, were enemy combatants located outside the compound who were killed lawfully in battle.

But a serving SAS soldier dubbed Person 40, called to give evidence by the newspapers in March, told the court that two Afghan men were pulled from the tunnel at Whiskey 108 and “marched off to another area” for what he assumed was tactical questioning by Roberts-Smith and Person 35.

A former SAS soldier dubbed Person 43 also gave evidence in March that he was involved in capturing an elderly Afghan man in the tunnel.

Yet another serving SAS soldier, dubbed Person 41, called by the newspapers in February, told the court that he saw Roberts-Smith execute an unarmed Afghan prisoner on the day in question and direct Person 4 to kill a second prisoner.

The newspapers have also alleged Roberts-Smith directed an Afghan soldier dubbed Person 12, via an interpreter, to order one of his subordinates in the Afghan partner force to shoot an unarmed prisoner in October 2012.

But Person 35 told the court on Tuesday that a decision was made in late July 2012 to remove Person 12 from participating in any further SAS missions, meaning he was not present in October that year.

Person 35 said the reason Person 12 was removed was because he had shot at a dog and “the line of shot that he took meant that those rounds went through the dog, probably hit the ground, and then ricocheted up and hit” another soldier.

Roberts-Smith, who denies giving any such direction to an Afghan soldier, says Person 12 was not on the mission in question. However, he had told the court on June 11 last year that he believed his previous explanation in a written outline of evidence about Person 12 being stood down for shooting at a dog was wrong.

The trial continues.