Former mistress tells court Ben Roberts-Smith coached her over punch evidence

The former mistress of Ben Roberts-Smith says the war hero told her to lie about a black eye he’d given her, evidence tabled in the Federal Court says.

10/8/2018: Australias most decorated Afghanistan veteran Ben Roberts-Smith with his wife Emma, on the Sunshine Coast . Ben Roberts-Smith has been accused of violence against his wife and others, which he strongly denies, and is taking legal action. Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

The former mistress of war hero Ben Roberts-Smith has landed a series of explosive allegations in the Federal Court — including text messages where she says the Victoria Cross winner “coached” her to lie about the black eye he’d given her after punching her in the face.

In a 60-page statement to the Federal Court, the woman — identified as Person 17 — says she and Roberts-Smith were both married during their six-month affair and went to great lengths to keep it a secret.

She said Roberts-Smith, a 39-year-old former corporal in the elite Special Air Services Regiment (SAS), communicated with her under a number of assumed names, using a “burner” phone and the Telegram app to send encrypted texts.

The affair, she says, ended in April, just days after Roberts-Smith “punched me on the left side of my face” after the couple had attended a public dinner in Canberra on May 28.

The day after the alleged assault, there were a series of Telegram texts between the pair, worried about whether Person 17’s husband would buy their story about how she got a black eye that was so bad she felt “awful” and needed medical attention.

Person 17: “ … I spoke to (my husband) and sent him a photo. He reacted exactly how you predicted. I think he believes me but is a bit sceptical.”

Rob Smith (aka Roberts-Smith): “I thought he would, what did you say?’ Does he think I did it?”

Person 17: “Yeah, he did to begin with & he didn’t believe that I’d fall down stairs. I just told him what we talked about.”

Rob Smith: “Did you say I was there at all?”

Person 17: “No. I said I caught up with you earlier in the week … think having my period will also work in my favour in terms of convincing him I wasn’t with you.”

Person 17’s allegations are part of the latest tranche of statements from Fairfax Media who are defending a high stakes defamation action by Robert-Smith, one of the most highly decorated war heroes in the country.

The Victoria Cross winner claims a series of stories by the media organisation between June and August cast him as a war criminal, a “callous, inhumane” murderer and a domestic violence offender.

Fairfax filed its defence last month, detailing its accusations against Roberts- Smith, including allegations he murdered or was complicit in the murder of six Afghan males, including shooting one at such close range the man’s brain matter splattered in his mouth.

Person 17 says she did give ACT police a photograph of herself with a black eye and copies of the Telegram texts. But she said she had also made clear to police she did not want her “domestic violence” complaint to go to court as she was “ scared for my safety and that of my children if I am identified.”

The woman said apart from her husband and Roberts-Smith’s wife “very few people” knew about the affair. But after media reports surfaced in August about the alleged domestic violence incident the woman feared the threat to her and her family from Roberts-Smith supporters — including former and serving members of the military — was “extreme’.

In court on Friday Roberts-Smith’s barrister said Person 17’s request to have her named suppressed was “unprecedented” given the gravity of the domestic violence allegations levelled at his client.

“My client absolutely denies the allegations of domestic violence, “ Mr McClintock told the court.

Fairfax Media lawyers have asked for Person 17 not to be identified on the grounds that it would place her at “high risk” of being killed if she were named, according to an assessment by security consultant, Konrad Buczynksi.

That risk was further elevated, Mr Buczynski found, because of the prevalence of PTSD among one group of “threat actors”, serving and ex members of the military.

Mr McClintock dismissed Mr Buczynksi’s security assessment as “nonsense”.

He said the claim Person 17 was at risk from a range of a groups — from the #metoo movement championing her cause to ex serving members of the military who had the potential to “act irrationally” due to the of PTSD — was “completely worthless”.

The violent social media threats, he said, had been levelled at the media, not Person 17.

“How one could say the threats are extreme astounds me,” Mr McClintock said.

On Monday Justice Besanko ordered a series of the suppression orders on evidence heard at the Friday hearing be lifted. An interim suppression order on Person 17’s identity continues.