Ben Roberts-Smith: War hero ’portrayed as ostentatious psychopath’

Ben Roberts-Smith was targeted by jealous soldiers who implicated him in war crimes supported by ‘credulous’ journalists, a court hears.

Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith arrives at the Federal Court in Sydney for his defamation hearing against Nine newspapers . Picture: Getty Images

Ben Roberts-Smith was targeted by bitter and jealous soldiers who implicated the decorated veteran in war crimes as part of a “poisonous campaign” supported by “credulous” journalists, the first day of the high-stakes defamation trial between the Victoria Cross recipient and the Nine Entertainment media empire has heard.

In opening submissions on Monday, high-profile defamation barrister Bruce McClintock SC, acting for Mr Roberts-Smith, told Federal Court judge Anthony Besanko that the case was about “courage, devotion of duty (and) self-sacrifice” on the one hand, and “dishonest journalism, corrosive jealousy, cowardice and lies,” on the other.

Mr Roberts-Smith, 42, is suing Nine newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times, which is now under separate ownership, for defamation over reports published in 2018 that alleged the former SAS soldier had committed murder during deployments to Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. He is also suing Nine over allegations that he punched a woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

Mr Roberts-Smith denies the allegations, saying the reports are defamatory because they portray him as a murderous war criminal who “broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement”.

The newspapers are seeking to prove that the war hero committed six murders, and will defend the claim using the truth defence.

In his last case before he retires, Mr McClintock opened the marathon trial by suggesting Nine had relied on jealous and “puerile” soldiers who wanted to destroy the war hero’s reputation by portraying him as an “ostentatious psychopath” who had qualities reminiscent of Robert Duvall’s character in the Vietnam War film Apocalypse Now.

The court heard that “ridiculous” evidence had been submitted by Nine about a conversation between Mr Roberts-Smith and another soldier, called Person 16, after their troop pulled over a Toyota HiLux in November 2012.

Parents Len and Sue Roberts-Smith outside the court on Monday. Picture: Getty Images

Mr McClintock told the court that Person 16 had claimed Mr Roberts-Smith admitted he had “pulled out my 9mm” and shot a teenage boy “in the head”, describing the alleged execution as “the most beautiful thing”.

“It’s like Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now as Colonel Kilgore on ice,” Mr McClintock said.

“It’s insane. It’s the sort of thing that would be said by an ostentatious psychopath.

“There are no eye witnesses to the alleged offence, no identification of the victim, and the respondents are well aware the allegation is directly contradicted by numerous documents produced by defence.”

Mr McClintock said the same soldier who had made the allegation was scheduled to give evidence about another element of the newspapers’ truth defence that was abandoned by Nine last month.

He framed the case as a battle between “credulous” journalists, bitter soldiers, those who “blush” at the characterisation of killing as a virtue, and the “exceptional” Mr Roberts-Smith.

“War is violent,” Mr McClintock said. “The simple fact is that some who’ve reported on matters concerning my client have forgotten that fact, the violence of war, in their rush to tear him down.

“They’ve forgotten what Winston Churchill truly said, which is we sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who harm us.”

As well, he dismissed the outlets’ “centrepiece” allegation – the murder of unarmed civilian Ali Jan in 2012 – as a “ludicrous” accusation that “did not happen”.

The court heard that two soldiers who are expected to give evidence on behalf of Nine made bullying complaints about Mr Roberts-Smith and were either “poor soldiers” or “not up to being” a part of the SAS.

Mr McClintock said one soldier shot in the direction of a woman and child and “giggled” after he was confronted by Mr Roberts-Smith. Another soldier, Mr McClintock said, was a “failure” whose “conduct verged on cowardice”. He said the soldier failed to properly lubricate an automatic weapon during a mission in Uruzgan Province in 2006, which “put the lives” of the patrol at “grave risk”.

Mr McClintock said the allegation of murder justified the court awarding Mr Roberts-Smith the largest damages payout in Australian history.

He described the allegation that Mr Roberts-Smith punched a woman, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, between late 2017 and early 2018 as a false accusation that had caused “terrible damage”.

He said evidence from witnesses would show the woman was intoxicated when she fell down the stairs and sustained a “very severe injury” to her left temple and eye.

The hearing is expected to last between eight and 10 weeks.