Andrew L. Urban
Roberts-Smith’s central position in evidence at the 2003 defamation trial was that the newspaper allegations were false and that all killings he was involved in were lawful engagements with insurgents during combat operations in Afghanistan. He denied murdering prisoners or ordering unlawful killings. But Justice Besanko rejected significant parts of Roberts-Smith’s account and found that several allegations of unlawful killings were proven to the civil standard of proof. He also found Roberts-Smith was not a reliable witness in some respects and that parts of his testimony were untruthful. It was a fateful fork in the road that leads to the criminal trial. Continue reading