Ex-lover denies lying over Ben Roberts-Smith sex photos

Ben Roberts-Smith’s former lover has denied lying about photographs she alleges were taken of the two having sex up against the window of a hotel room.

Ben Roberts-Smith outside the Federal Court in Sydney. Picture: Gaye Gerard

Ben Roberts-Smith’s former lover has denied lying about photographs she alleges were taken of the two having sex up against the window of a hotel room, after being shown documents suggesting she told police the pictures were instead of the couple in bed.

In emotional evidence to the Federal Court on Thursday, the woman known as Person 17 also denied she had engaged in “monstrously deceitful” conduct by letting the Victoria Cross winner think she was still pregnant with his child after having a miscarriage.

Mr Roberts-Smith and Person 17 had been having a six-month affair, beginning in October 2017, while both were married.

The woman told the court on Wednesday she was approached on a beach by a stranger and shown photos of herself and the war hero having sex up against a window in a room at the Milton Hotel in Brisbane.

She said the mysterious figure had told her she was to tell Mr Roberts-Smith’s wife, Emma, about the affair, or the photos would be made public.

Mr Roberts-Smith’s barrister, Bruce McClintock, in cross examination on Thursday showed Person 17 a police document which suggested she had told them the photographs in fact showed the couple naked in bed.

“That’s not what I would have told police because that’s not true,” Person 17 said.

“You have simply fabricated this story about having sex up against the window to account for the impossibility of photographs being taken in any other circumstances haven’t you?” Mr McClintock asked.

The woman replied: “No.”

Person 17 has previously given evidence that she became pregnant to Mr Roberts-Smith but that the couple had decided to terminate the pregnancy. Before that could happen, she said, she miscarried but did not tell Mr Roberts-Smith.

Mr Roberts-Smith said he felt he was being manipulated by Person 17 into staying in a relationship with her.

Person 17 agreed she wanted Mr Roberts-Smith to keep thinking she was pregnant but denied she had engaged in “a calculated campaign of deceit”.

Mr McClintock pursued the woman’s claims that she was distressed about the miscarriage, pointing to text messages she sent to Mr Roberts-Smith after the miscarriage but not mentioning it.

“Madam, this is a monstrously deceitful message, isn’t it?” Mr McClintock asked.

She replied after a pause, sobbing: “No.”

Mr McClintock continued: “You wanted him to think that you were still pregnant when you knew you were not, didn’t you? Didn’t you?”

Person 17 replied: “I suppose so.”

When Mr McClintock suggested “the reason why you wanted him to think that was to keep a hold over him”, Person 17 said: “No, either way I was going to be terminating if I’ve not had a miscarriage.”

Mr McClintock asked: “Don’t you think it’s appallingly dishonest to let a man think you’re pregnant to him when you’re not? Don’t you?”

Person 17 said: “I suppose so.”

Mr Roberts-Smith is suing Nine newspapers over allegations that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan and that he punched Person 17 in the face after a function at Parliament House in Canberra in which she had got drunk and embarrassed him in front of dignitaries, including the Prime Minister.

Mr Roberts-Smith denies all the allegations. He said the injury to Person 17 occurred when she stumbled and fell on the stairs outside Parliament House.

Person 17 has given evidence that Mr Roberts-Smith hit her after they returned to their hotel and left her with a black eye.

On Thursday Person 17 denied she had deliberately not shown Australian Federal Police text messages which suggested Mr Roberts-Smith was caring for her on the night she says he hit her, and which made no reference to him hitting her.

“You don’t mentioned that he’d (punched you) in there, do you?” Mr McClintock asked.

Person 17 responded: “No.”

Mr McClintock added: “The reason why you didn’t do it is because he hadn’t hit you. That’s correct, isn’t it?”

Person 17: “He did hit me.”

Mr McClintock: “You selected this night as the one to make the allegation of assault against my client opportunistically because you knew that it was the one time that you actually suffered a verifiable injury to your head – that is, when you fell down the stairs – and that’s the truth, isn’t it?”

Person 17 replied: “No.”