Nine to view key Brereton evidence from Ben Roberts-Smith

Evidence obtained by the Brereton war crimes inquiry into ­Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith will be given to Nine newspapers.

Ben Roberts-Smith. Picture: Jonathan Ng

Evidence obtained by the Brereton war crimes inquiry into ­Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith will be given to Nine newspapers as they defend a defamation suit launched by the Afghanistan war hero over allegations he was involved in multiple murders.

Federal Court judge Craig Colvin ordered Mr Roberts-Smith to provide documents to lawyers for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald which were provided to him by the ­Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force so he could respond to the allegations made against him.

The material is likely to include the IGADF’s findings in relation to Mr Roberts-Smith, together with evidence from whistleblowers and official documents obtained in its four-year war crimes inquiry conducted by NSW Supreme Court judge Major General Paul Brereton.

Chief of Defence General Angus Campbell is due to release the Brereton report next week, but the public document is unlikely to identify the names of alleged offenders.

Justice Colvin ordered that the material to be handed to the newspapers could not include information acquired coercively through the inquiry from witnesses who could face future trials, nor information obtained as a result of that evidence.

The documents will be available only to parties to the case, and will be redacted to protect national security information.

The IGADF had argued there was a public interest ­immunity in disclosing information from the Brereton inquiry, including whether Mr Roberts-Smith had been given a “potentially affected person” ­notice, or PAP, setting out the inquiry’s findings against him.

Mr Roberts-Smith backed the IGADF’s claim of public interest immunity, arguing it would breach immunities provided by witnesses to the inquiry.

Nine newspapers journalist Nick McKenzie said the ruling was “stunning”, arguing on Twitter that Justice Colvin had ordered the release of files that Mr Roberts-Smith “fought hard to keep secret”. But Mr Roberts-Smith’s lawyer, Mark O’Brien, cast the decision as a win for soldiers who had been compelled to give evidence to the inquiry.

“This application was not and never was about ‘hiding’ material from Nine newspapers,” he said. “Nine newspapers have been afforded unprecedented access to classified military ­material in these proceedings.

“However, Nine newspapers being given full access to documents concerning the inquiry’s confidential four-year investigation would have undermined not only the integrity of the inquiry, but the protections afforded to all witnesses who have been compelled to appear before the inquiry, a number of whom will be called to give evidence not just on Ben’s behalf, but also on behalf of Nine.”

Nine newspapers have alleged the former SAS soldier committed multiple war crimes while serving in Afghanistan.

The Federal Court previously heard the AFP told Mr Roberts-Smith it had “eyewitness accounts” implicating him in the alleged murder of ­Afghan villager Ali Jan in September 2012.

Mr Roberts-Smith vehemently denies the allegations.