Ben Roberts-Smith, one of Australia's most decorated soldiers, will today learn the outcome of an extraordinary defamation battle against three newspapers that began nearly five years ago.
The Victoria Cross recipient sued the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times and three journalists in the Federal Court over a series of articles published in 2018.
Those stories contained allegations of unlawful killings while on deployment with the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) in Afghanistan, bullying of his former comrades and domestic violence against a woman in Canberra, all of which Mr Roberts-Smith denied.
The trial spanned more than 100 days of hearings across some 13 months, and was unlike any previous defamation case seen in an Australian court.
It involved former and current elite soldiers — ordinarily men whose professional lives and identities are necessarily kept secret — stepping into the witness box to provide detailed accounts of missions in Afghanistan.
Significant case
Ten months later, Justice Anthony Besanko is today poised to deliver what is likely to become one of the most significant and studied defamation judgements the court has produced.
According to the veteran's lawyers, the purpose of the case was clear: the vindication of his reputation.
Mr Roberts-Smith entered the witness box over several days, where he was cross-examined and scrutinised by publisher Nine Entertainment's legal team.
He said he spent his life fighting for his country.
"I did everything I could to ensure I did it with honour," Mr Roberts-Smith said, denying he ever broke the rules of engagement.
Public accusations of murder were devastating and heartbreaking, he told the court.
Nine called nearly 20 SAS witnesses as it sought to establish a truth defence, while Mr Roberts-Smith's team called more than a dozen SAS witnesses.
Throughout the proceedings, men who once served together gave contradictory evidence about what unfolded during missions.
Barrister Nicholas Owens SC, for Nine, said there were irreconcilable accounts and, in the trial's final days, succinctly stated the dilemma facing the judge: "Someone is lying."
The defamation case will be decided on the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities.
It is possible the result will be mixed; Nine's truth defence may succeed in relation to some of the imputations — or meanings — pleaded by the veteran, and fail on others.
Key missions
The most prominent allegation involved the death of a man named Ali Jan, in the village of Darwan in Afghanistan, during a September 2012 mission.
Mr Roberts-Smith was accused of kicking the farmer over a slope and being involved in his subsequent killing, after Mr Jan fell to a dry creek bed below.
But during his evidence, the veteran recalled engaging a Taliban "spotter" — or lookout — that day, before a search of the body in a cornfield revealed an ICOM radio on him.
Another key mission in this case unfolded at a Taliban compound dubbed "Whiskey 108", in April 2009.
It was at this compound Nine alleged two unlawful killings occurred.
One alleged killing involved that of a man with a prosthetic leg who, according to a witness known as Person 24, was marched outside and shot with a machine gun.
Mr Roberts-Smith told the court that a man he killed during the mission was an armed insurgent, who he encountered at the corner of the building.
In total, Nine alleged the veteran was involved in six unlawful killings during his deployments.
Personal life comes to light
While the case shed light on missions in Afghanistan, it also revealed many details of Mr Roberts-Smith's personal life in Australia, including a tumultuous affair.
His ex-girlfriend, codenamed Person 17, testified about attending a function at Parliament House with Mr Roberts-Smith in March 2018, where she fell down a staircase after drinking.
She claimed back in their hotel room Mr Roberts-Smith, angry she had potentially exposed their relationship at dinner, punched her to the side of her face and later told her to lie to her husband about the injury.
Mr Roberts-Smith flatly rejected that account, telling the court domestic violence was "a disgusting act of cowardice".
There were fiery attacks upon the credibility of witnesses on both sides.
The veteran's barrister, Arthur Moses SC, said it was "crystal clear" that his client's Victoria Cross award led to a "war of words" waged by bitter, jealous colleagues.
He said allegations about Mr Roberts-Smith were made "in the dark", criticised journalists for publishing fiction as though it was fact, and said many of Nine's witnesses were exposed as perjurers.
Mr Owens said Mr Roberts-Smith was the one prepared to lie under oath, and highlighted close associations between the former soldier's witnesses, who he said had their own motives to lie.
During his closing address, Mr Moses made clear the gravity of the case, when he explained what was at stake for his client if the publisher succeeded in its truth defence.
"This would in effect paint Mr Roberts-Smith as a murderer, or a person guilty of murder, a violent person, and a domestic violence abuser," he said.
Justice Besanko will read a summary of his judgement from 2:15pm today, before the full document is made public.
