Ben Roberts-Smith warned an SAS comrade he would “get a bullet in the back of the head” on the battlefield if he didn’t improve his performance, the comrade has told a defamation trial, saying he took the comment as a threat Roberts-Smith would shoot him.
Roberts-Smith, one of Australia’s most decorated soldiers, carried out a sustained campaign of bullying, threats and undermining of his patrol colleague, the former colleague claimed in his evidence on Thursday.
The soldier, referred to in court as Person One, remains a serving sergeant in the SAS, and a specialist in parachute operations and training. He is giving evidence in the trial of Robert-Smith’s defamation claim against a number of news outlets.
Roberts-Smith is suing the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times for defamation over a series of reports he alleges are defamatory and portray him as committing war crimes, including murder.
The newspapers are pleading a defence of truth. Roberts-Smith denies any wrongdoing.
The court heard Person One had qualified for the SAS, having initially been in the army reserves, and experienced a “negative attitude” from other members of the regiment.
“I was from a reserve background, rest of the members were from a regular army background, with significantly more experience than me.”
Person One said Roberts-Smith’s “harassment” began before they had deployed to Afghanistan. Person One said Roberts-Smith would hit him in the head while he was driving on the training ground, and told him he was an incompetent soldier, undeserving of a place in the SAS.
“He said he was going to do everything in his power to have me removed from the team and to get one of his colleagues to replace me.”
Person One told the court he was on patrol with Roberts-Smith in the Chora Valley in May and June of 2006. The patrol marched for 10 hours overnight to the top of a mountain carrying 75-kilogram packs as part of a mission to observe villages below for one or two weeks, looking for any potential insurgent activity.
But on the second day, the presence of the patrol was revealed after a young Afghan shepherd was seen walking in the mountains.
Person One said the young man – aged between 15 and 20 – had not seen the concealed observation post, but Roberts-Smith and another soldier chased after the man and killed him, drawing attention to the position.
Person One said the man was not armed, nor wearing webbing or any other military clothing. The man appeared not to have seen the Australian soldiers, Person One said, because he did not suddenly change his pattern of movement, nor display the “dinner plate eyes” of being shocked to see enemy soldiers nearby. Person One said he believed it was best not to engage the man and give away the Australians’ position.
In his evidence before the court last year, Roberts-Smith said the man was a legitimate military target who was moving suspiciously. When he shot the man, Roberts-Smith said a flare – “what you typically get when ordnance goes off or detonates” – came off chest webbing the man was wearing.
In court on Thursday, Person One disputed a later-recorded logbook entry which stated the slain man was armed with an assault rifle and “appeared to be aggressively patrolling” and “ready to fire”.
Person One told the court the shooting of the Afghan man attracted an insurgent attack and the patrol was engaged in a fierce firefight on the mountaintop that was ended when the Australian patrol called in US aircraft to fire on the insurgent positions. The overwatch mission was abandoned. Roberts-Smith was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions during the battle.
Under cross-examination, Person One agreed with Bruce McClintock, SC, acting for Roberts-Smith, that the Afghan man killed on the mountain at Chora was likely a Taliban spotter, “a legitimate target”, and that the decision to kill him was reasonable.
During that battle, Person One’s machine gun stopped working because he’d failed to bring oil to properly lubricate it. He conceded in court it was a mistake: “I should have taken oil with me on the mission.”
Following the Chora Valley mission, Person One told the court Roberts-Smith approached him in the soldiers’ shared team room. Roberts-Smith told him “if your performance doesn’t improve on the next patrol, you’re going to get a bullet in the back of the head”.
Person One told the court he understood the threat to mean that Roberts-Smith was going to shoot him in the back of the head in battle.
“It made me fearful for my own personal safety,” Person One said.
“It made me lose more confidence, it made me perform worse.”
Having told comrades of the comment, Person One was encouraged to report it to his commanders, which he did. After the complaint was received, Person One claimed Roberts-Smith threatened him again, approaching him in the mess line, standing close and leaning over him.
“If you’re going to make accusations cunt, you’d better have some fucking proof.”
Person one said Roberts-Smith would regularly intimidate him and told other soldiers he was “incompetent”, “a coward”, and “didn’t deserve to be in the regiment”.
The court spent time examining Person One’s performance reviews, and the weaknesses in his performance as a soldier. While on Roberts-Smith’s patrol he was found to have significant deficiencies.
Person One said he lacked confidence in his capabilities as a soldier “due to the behaviour I was being subjected to”.
“The applicant [Roberts-Smith] would exaggerate my mistakes and spread rumours about me.”
Person One told the court Roberts-Smith’s “harassment got so bad I was struggling with even simple tasks”. He said it cost him “years of lost sleep” and “hamstrung” his career progression.
“The death threat I received from him made me fear for my safety. Not only did I have to worry about the Taliban, I had to look over my own back at people in my own squadron.”
Person One was moved out of Roberts-Smith’s patrol in July 2006, shortly after Chora. His performance reviews improved considerably after that time.
According to performance reviews tendered in court, Person One has since enjoyed a decorated career in the SAS, earning promotions, overseas deployments, and specialist training programs, as well as excellent feedback from superiors, described as a “fine representative of the SASR”.
In his earlier evidence before the court, Roberts-Smith denied accusations of bullying.
“I’ve never bullied Person One,” he said.
He told the court Person One just wasn’t a “very good soldier” who wanted to cover up his poor performance.
“It’s always been the case,” he said.
“After the battle in Chora I said words to the effect that I didn’t think he should be in the unit and should probably be considering moving back to the regular army.”
Roberts-Smith said he never threatened Person One, hit him, or swore at him.
The trial, before justice Anthony Besanko, continues.
