The current legal battle facing Ben Roberts-Smith may seem extraordinary and unprecedented in its scale, particularly as one of Australia’s most decorated veterans – having been awarded some of the highest accolades you can receive in the military. He was widely considered a national hero, until his reputation started to deteriorate following a 2023 Federal Court ruling. The reason? A failed defamation action brought by Roberts-Smith against multiple media outlets, and the ruling it came to. As it stands today, he has since been arrested for war crimes, granted bail, and is awaiting trial on those charges.
So, how did he get here?
A Multi-Million Dollar Defamation Suit
Ben Roberts-Smith began defamation proceedings in 2018 against Nine Entertainment newspapers (including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times) and journalists, over 2018 reports alleging he committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
After a lengthy Federal Court trial, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed the claim on 1 June 2023, finding that the publications were substantially true – meaning, on the civil standard of proof, it was more likely than not that Roberts-Smith had committed unlawful killings and other misconduct.
He appealed, but in May 2025 the Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the original findings. A further attempt to take the matter to the High Court was refused in September 2025, bringing the defamation case to an end.
When he first brought the defamation case, his legal action was largely funded by media billionaire Kerry Stokes and his company (linked to Seven West Media), who supported and bankrolled his legal team throughout the trial.
However, after he lost the case in 2023, the Federal Court ordered that he pay the legal costs of the newspapers he sued (Nine Entertainment) – a figure estimated to be tens of millions of dollars (around $25 million or more).
Because of the scale of those costs, the media companies also pursued his financial backers, and Stokes’ private company was later ordered to contribute millions (around $13 million+) toward the bill.
From Defamation to Criminal Proceedings
The civil findings later fed into criminal investigations, and in 2026 he was charged with multiple war crime murders, which he denies and which must be proven to the higher criminal standard.
A Win for the Defence of Truth in Investigative Journalism
This case was extraordinary for many reasons, not least of which is its sheer scale and cost.
At the time of the June 2023 findings, defamation expert Jaqueline Meredith of Swinburne University was quoted as saying the complexity of the case was due to the media outlets’ use of the truth defence.
“A key reason for the complexity in this case is the reliance by the newspapers on the defence of truth. This involves a complex and lengthy fact-finding exercise.”
The union representing Australia’s journalists has described the court win as a “big and important win for journalism and press freedom in Australia”.
Karen Percy, who leads the media section at the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, tweeted that the judge’s ruling “upholds the media’s important role in undertaking public interest investigations & in the public’s right to know”.
When Defamation Law and Criminal Law Intersect
Defamation law and criminal law can intersect when allegations serious enough to damage a person’s reputation – such as assault, fraud, or murder – are also potential criminal offences. In a defamation case, a publisher can defend the claim by proving the allegations are substantially true, but only to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities), not the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
This means a court may find it more likely than not that someone engaged in criminal conduct without any criminal conviction. Those civil findings can then prompt or bolster police investigations, and in some cases lead to criminal charges being laid – though any prosecution must still independently prove the case to the stricter criminal standard.
