Ben Roberts-Smith VC Defamation Trial

Call me dim, but if his legal team have his VC as collateral against possible costs connected with losing the case, how does their plan to donate the medal to the AWM if he loses pay his costs?

Dream up a silly VC valuation, donate it to the AWM (a charity), claim tax write-off.........which will be approved because his benefactor, Kerry Stokes, is chairman of the AWM.

All very cosy, and only the Aussie taxpayer gets to foot the bill.
 
Public perception, not good for lawyers to lose a high profile case, so they write off their losses and offset the damage with an extremely well-publicised PR exercise that moves the news of them losing to that of them making a significant donation.
In addition, his
VC would be a good 'gloat' for the SMH to have, should they win. Murdoch has all of Grobbelaars medals, as an example. B
 
Can't quite figure out what the allegations that BRS is boning one of the legal team has to do with it. Is that why his ex jumped ship?
It was brought up in a seperate case by a different judge where BRS is sueing his ex wife for breach of legal privelige in that she passed material in his possesion in his email account to the defence when she changed sides. He had been seen with the female member of his legal team and a couple of publications including the DM took photo of them together. The judge wanted to know if they were in a relationship. He has denied this and his brief related this to the judge and basically told he to stop being a sexist as it is difficult enough for women lawyers in the profession.
 
In addition, his
VC would be a good 'gloat' for the SMH to have, should they win. Murdoch has all of Grobbelaars medals, as an example. B
BRS is being funded by his boss, Kerry Stokes, a multi million pound owner of the Seven media empire and who is also involved in the Australian War Memorial in a big way. BRS has put his VC as collateral for the loan he has received from Kerry Stokes. If he loses the case and has to pay costs the VC becomes the property of Mr Stokes who will pay the costs. He says that he will donate the VC to the AWM. The VC will not go to the SMH or to Nine.

If BRS wins his case, Nine and the ABC will have to pay the costs so Mr Stokes will get his money back, BRS will get large damages and will keep his VC.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
In addition, his
VC would be a good 'gloat' for the SMH to have, should they win. Murdoch has all of Grobbelaars medals, as an example. B
Yes, I can see the equivalence of that example.
 
The film deals, sequels and prequels will probably pay for everything. Even if they only get as far as Netflix. Still money in the bank.

SK

p.s Im just a random dude on the Internet, WTF would I know about film deals.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
Ben Roberts-Smith VC's Defamation trial starts tomorrow in Sydney. He is sueing the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Canberra Times all owned by Nine, an Australian media company, formerly Fairfax media. He is also sueing the ABC. They are all being sued over allegations in a series of articles and programmes in 2018 alleging that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan and assaulted his mistress in Australia. The case is set to last at least 12 weeks with BR-S being backed by Kerry Stokes, the owner of rival Seven media company. Ben Roberts-Smith has put his Victoria Cross as collateral in case he loses in which case Kerry Stokes states he will donate it to the Australian War Memorial.

Ben Roberts-Smith was also awarded the Medal For Gallantry in 2006 in Afghanistan which is equivelent to the Military Cross. This makes him Australia's most decorated living soldier.

For full details please see the link from the Guardian:

The case in courtroom 18D: Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial

These two links also give a lot of information, although the first is by the Sydney Morning Herald and the second by the ABC, both defendants in the case.

Ben Roberts-Smith trial: Why this decorated soldiers reputation will be on the stand.

Ben Roberts-Smith's defamation trialis high stakes for Defence Department
I thought that his VC was already in Canberra.
 
BRS is being funded by his boss, Kerry Stokes, a multi million pound owner of the Seven media empire and who is also involved in the Australian War Memorial in a big way. BRS has put his VC as collateral for the loan he has received from Kerry Stokes. If he loses the case and has to pay costs the VC becomes the property of Mr Stokes who will pay the costs. He says that he will donate the VC to the AWM. The VC will not go to the SMH or to Nine.

If BRS wins his case, Nine and the ABC will have to pay the costs so Mr Stokes will get his money back, BRS will get large damages and will keep his VC.

The VC "security", as above, is a crude mechanism to ensure Stokes is no worse off. Donate ther VC to the AWM (of which he is chairman, despite no military service), claim huge tax deduction to his private company, and swan off into the sunset no worse off.

Whether BRS gets to keep his VC in the event of a "win" will depend very much on whether the AG pursues criminal actions against him for war crimes, particularly as one of the actions where reports are alleged to have been falsified relates to that for which the VC was awarded.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to post links to the SMH/Age articles you're essentially quoting verbatim?
 
Last edited:
Seems that someone may have forgotten their Lines To Take brief.

'An Afghan witness appears to have made a slip-up, claiming in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial that a “big soldier” gave him instructions in Pashto, which Mr Roberts-Smith does not speak.

'The final witness testifying from Kabul, Shahzad Aka, made the assertion under questioning from both sides in the trial, by Nine Newspapers’ lawyer and Mr Roberts-Smith’s. He told the trial that the “big soldier” had come and had “a conversation” with him and others as they waited in a hut in Darwan after a raid by Australian SAS soldiers on September 11, 2012. “That soldier told us you should not move until our plane comes … lands and we go back,” he said. “This was said to us in Pashto language. Yes, we were told in Pashto, the conversation with us in Pashto.”

'On June 19 this year, Mr Roberts-Smith testified that he didn’t speak the Pashto language. The trial has heard an interpreter accompanied to soldiers to translate commands to Afghan villagers. Mr Roberts-Smith said like all SAS soldiers he used “during an assault, very basic words, ‘stop’, ‘get down’ and ‘put your hands up’,” when telling a PUC (person under control) what to do.'


 
Seems that someone may have forgotten their Lines To Take brief.

'An Afghan witness appears to have made a slip-up, claiming in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial that a “big soldier” gave him instructions in Pashto, which Mr Roberts-Smith does not speak.

'The final witness testifying from Kabul, Shahzad Aka, made the assertion under questioning from both sides in the trial, by Nine Newspapers’ lawyer and Mr Roberts-Smith’s. He told the trial that the “big soldier” had come and had “a conversation” with him and others as they waited in a hut in Darwan after a raid by Australian SAS soldiers on September 11, 2012. “That soldier told us you should not move until our plane comes … lands and we go back,” he said. “This was said to us in Pashto language. Yes, we were told in Pashto, the conversation with us in Pashto.”

'On June 19 this year, Mr Roberts-Smith testified that he didn’t speak the Pashto language. The trial has heard an interpreter accompanied to soldiers to translate commands to Afghan villagers. Mr Roberts-Smith said like all SAS soldiers he used “during an assault, very basic words, ‘stop’, ‘get down’ and ‘put your hands up’,” when telling a PUC (person under control) what to do.'


Well Nine have been paying the three Afghan witnesses living costs for months.
 
Ben Roberts-Smith Trial: New Afghan witnesses says he saw 'big soldier' kick man over.

It seems that one of the Afghan witnesses has slipped up in the story he has been coached in. He states that BRS spoke to him in Pashto when BRS only knows a few words of the language.

Ben Roberts-Smith trial hears from Afghan village elder

From a report by the same source a few hours earlier. It seems the judge had doubts about elements of the witnesses testimony.

“He didn‘t have a wireless device, he didn’t have a wireless device, the soldiers put it on his body,” Mr Aka told the court while inspecting photos of the body in the field.

Justice Anthony Besanko said he would not “receive” Mr Aka‘s evidence that the soldiers planted the radio on the body in the cornfield.

The ICOM radio photographed on the body has become a major element in the alleged murder of the Darwan shepherd.

Nine claims the SAS planted the device on the body in order to justify killing an innocent man.

Mr Roberts-Smith says he never used fake evidence “throwdowns” and had not heard of the SAS ever performing such a thing.
 
Last edited:
How is the polices' investigation against him going?
I didn't think that the names of those being investigated ss a result of the Brereton Enquiry report had been released. Also, I can't remember the compositionof the investigation team.

As I commented in the (inevitable) other thread, I don't know how the result of the defamation case brought by BRS will bear on any eventual Brereton-related trials. I suppose defamation being a civil case (?) has a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial, eg for murdering prisoners. Allegedly.
 
I didn't think that the names of those being investigated ss a result of the Brereton Enquiry report had been released. Also, I can't remember the compositionof the investigation team.

As I commented in the (inevitable) other thread, I don't know how the result of the defamation case brought by BRS will bear on any eventual Brereton-related trials. I suppose defamation being a civil case (?) has a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial, eg for murdering prisoners. Allegedly.
Well if he wins his case. If Nine News can't win on the balance of probabilities the AFP won't be able to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Its the same evidence being produced. It will depend on the evidence produced by SASR witnesses for BRS and those against him and any supporting evidence.
 
Well if he wins his case. If Nine News can't win on the balance of probabilities the AFP won't be able to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Its the same evidence being produced. It will depend on the evidence produced by SASR witnesses for BRS and those against him and any supporting evidence.
That doesn’t follow. The AFP will be conducting a criminal investigation and will be interviewing under caution. Nine’s lawyers did neither.
 
Top