The case involving Ben Roberts-Smith is a high-profile Australian defamation proceeding rather than a criminal trial. In 2018, several newspapers owned by Nine Entertainment Co. published allegations that he committed war crimes while serving with the Special Air Service Regiment in Afghanistan. Roberts-Smith sued for defamation, but in 2023 the Federal Court of Australia found that many of the allegations were substantially true on the civil standard (“balance of probabilities”), not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal law.

Killing of an unarmed detainee (Darwan, 2012)
Roberts-Smith was found to have unlawfully killed an Afghan man during an operation in Darwan. The court accepted that the man was unarmed and posed no immediate threat when he was kicked off a cliff by another soldier and then shot. The judge concluded Roberts-Smith either directly shot the man or was complicit in the killing, rejecting claims that the detainee was an enemy combatant.

Execution of a detainee with a prosthetic leg
Another key allegation was that Roberts-Smith machine-gunned an elderly Afghan man who had a prosthetic leg after he had been detained. The court found this account credible, including that the prosthetic leg was later kept by soldiers as a form of trophy—an act cited as evidence of a broader problematic culture within the patrol.

Killing during a compound clearance (“blooding” allegation)
The court accepted that a junior soldier was instructed to shoot a detained Afghan man as part of an initiation practice sometimes referred to as “blooding.” Roberts-Smith was found to have been involved in directing or endorsing this act, after which the detainee was killed. The ruling treated this as another unlawful killing rather than a legitimate engagement.

Bullying and assault of fellow soldiers
Separate from battlefield conduct, the court also found that Roberts-Smith assaulted a fellow SAS soldier in Australia. This included an incident in a Canberra hotel where he was found to have physically attacked a subordinate. These findings supported claims about intimidation and misuse of authority.

Overall outcome
Because the case was civil, the findings do not constitute criminal convictions. However, the judgment concluded that multiple serious allegations—including unlawful killings—were proven on the civil standard, leading to Roberts-Smith losing his defamation case and being ordered to pay substantial legal costs.