Best soldier loses war crimes by defamation

The most adorned live soldier in Australia, Ben Roberts Smith, lost a call for a landmark court that found that he had committed war crimes.

In 2023, the judge ruled that the news articles claimed that Victoria’s recipient had killed four unarmed Afghans, but Mr. Roberts claimed that the judge made legal mistakes.

For the first time in history, the civil lawsuit estimated any court assessed claims against war crimes by Australian forces.

On Friday, the Board of three judges of the Federal Court supported the original verdict.

Mr. Roberts Smith, who left defense forces in 2013, supports his innocence and not charged with any of the requirements in the criminal court, where there is a higher burden of evidence.

The former Corporal Special Forces sued three Australian newspapers for a number of articles claiming serious violations when it was located in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2012 as part of a US military coalition.

At a time when the articles were published in 2018, Mr. Roberts Smith was considered a national hero who was awarded the highest military pride in Australia for alone, who overcame the Taliban fighters who attacked his special air service (SAS).

The 46-year-old guy claimed that the alleged killings occurred legally during the fight or did not take place at all, saying that the documents had ruined his life with their reports.

Its slander case – which some of them called the “test of the century” in Australia – lasted more than 120 days, and is rumored now worth $ 35 million ($ 22.5 million; £ 16.9 million).

In June 2023, the Justice of the Federal Court, Antoni Besanka, threw the case against age, “Sydney Morning Herald” and “Canber Times”, deciding that “significantly” that Mr. Roberts killed unarmed Afghan prisoners and civilians.

He also found that Mr. Roberts Smith lied to cover his violations and threaten witnesses.

Additional allegations that he punched his lover, threatened his peers and committed two more killings, did not prove the standard “balance of probabilities” needed in civil affairs.

The “heart” of the appeal case was that the justice of the uninnatural did not give sufficient weight of Mr. Roberts-Smith’s presumption of innocence, his lawyer Bret Walker, said SC.

There is a legal principle that requires the judges to carefully proceed to civil affairs, which provide for serious accusations and to draw serious consequences.

Mr. Walker claimed that the data presented by the newspapers did not meet the necessary standard.

This news story is updated and will be published in more detail soon. Please update the page for the full version.

You can get news about destruction on a smartphone or tablet via App BBC NEWS. You can also follow @Bbcbreaking on X To get the latest alerts.