Opinion: “The Cost of Judgement: Standing with Ben Roberts-Smith”

By Ray Payne OAM

In a nation that once celebrated him as a hero, Ben Roberts-Smith VC now finds himself the subject of relentless legal and media scrutiny…scrutiny shaped largely by individuals who have never faced the enemy nor endured the brutal theatre of war.

The recent failure of Roberts-Smith’s appeal against defamation findings has reignited debate about not just the man, but the judgement of war itself. As lawyers from Nine celebrated their legal win with hugs and smiles outside the courtroom, one couldn’t help but reflect on the stark contrast between their triumph and the life this soldier has led in service to his country.

This is not a defence of every allegation made or a denial of justice, but a call for perspective. The battlefield is not a courtroom. It is a place of chaos, life-and-death decisions, and moral ambiguity. Those who have not lived through the fog of war cannot truly comprehend its cost, nor should they so easily condemn those who have.

Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross, Australia’s highest military honour, for his extraordinary courage under fire. His acts saved Australian lives. He faced down machine-gun fire to rescue pinned-down comrades. For that, he was not only decorated but held up as a symbol of our national spirit. Yet, years later, after reports by journalists and a civil court judgement made on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, his reputation lies in ruins.

Critics point to war crimes allegations that remain untested in any criminal court. No charges have been laid against Roberts-Smith. The findings against him stem from a civil defamation case, where the threshold of proof is significantly lower than that of a criminal trial. These are vital distinctions that too often go ignored in the court of public opinion.

It is easy for those who have never worn the uniform, never kicked in a door in hostile territory, never watched a mate die, to pass judgement. War, by its very nature, is not clean. It is not governed by the same expectations we uphold in civilian life. And yet, we seem determined to hold our soldiers to peacetime standards while demanding they fight wars on our behalf.

What message does this send to those who may one day be asked to risk everything in defence of the nation? That honour and service will only be recognised until it becomes inconvenient.

Roberts-Smith is now left facing a legal bill that may exceed $25 million, not because he was charged with a crime, but because he fought to defend his name. While journalists and lawyers toast their victory, the human cost, the psychological toll, the ruin of a man once lionised. remains largely unspoken.

This is not about shielding anyone from accountability. If war crimes were committed, they must be prosecuted in the proper forum, through a criminal trial, with the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Until that day comes, Roberts-Smith remains an uncharged man, still entitled to the presumption that he served his country with honour and did his duty under unimaginably difficult circumstances.

Let us not forget that the freedom to judge was purchased by those who stepped into harm’s way. Perhaps we should show a little more humility, and gratitude, before condemning them.