Australia's most decorated living soldier's reputation has been obliterated by the Federal Court, but that's not all he may lose.
Ben Roberts-Smith sat through more than 100 days of hearings in the mammoth defamation battle he mounted against The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times, and three journalists.
But on Thursday he was absent when Justice Anthony Besanko threw out the case, finding publisher Nine Entertainment had established a substantial truth to the most serious allegations of murder.
Defamation trials are decided on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof. This is different from criminal responsibility, which would require charges to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Roberts-Smith was steadfast in his repeated denial of the allegations — published in 2018 — of bullying, domestic violence, and war crimes related to his six tours of Afghanistan undertaken between 2006 and 2012.
Justice Besanko found that Nine had established a substantial truth defence and contextual truth defence to most of the imputations, or meanings conveyed.
He has delayed the release of his full judgement so the Commonwealth can make redactions to any information concerning national security information.
A lot of the evidence throughout the trial was heard in closed court, as to not disclose Australian defence secrets.
Justice Besanko has not determined whether the public will ever have access to those 50 pages of closed-court findings, when he releases his judgement, which will come on June 5 at the latest.
How Mr Roberts-Smith might pay
One of the most expensive defamation trial's in Australian history, it is estimated to have cost upwards of $25 million.
Shortly after it was dismissed, Nicholas Owens SC, on behalf of Nine, flagged he would be applying for costs.
The barrister asked for 21 days to prepare any third party and indemnity costs, which if granted would mean Mr Roberts-Smith is up for most, or all of defence's legal bill, along with his.
A directions hearing has been set down on June 29, to begin this process.
Seven West's executive chairman, Kerry Stokes, has been financially supporting the case of Mr Roberts-Smith, who was leading the network's Queensland operations.
Mr Roberts-Smith took leave from his job after taking legal action, and Seven said they are still assessing whether he would return.
"Ben remains on leave and will review the judgement with us and make a decision on his future in the near future," Seven said in a statement.
"We will make no further comment at this time."
Nine previously broadcast secret recordings in which the veteran appeared to say he was indebted to the media mogul, offering up his Victoria Cross as collateral.
Medals and honours
After Mr Roberts-Smith was awarded the prestigious Victoria Cross in 2011, he became an icon for the Special Air Service (SAS).
His memorabilia is currently exhibited at the Australian War Memorial, which Greens Senator David Shoebridge thinks should be removed.
"At a minimum we should be seeing action from the Australian War Memorial, to remove the display that is now there for Ben Roberts-Smith, his uniform, and his medals, which thousands of people will attend tomorrow to view and witness," he said.
"The Australian War Memorial has an obligation to tell the whole truth about Australia's involvement in Afghanistan."
Charges won't result from this finding
A 2020 report by former judge Paul Brereton found credible information of war crimes committed by the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
Oliver Schulz is the only former SAS soldier to be charged with the war crime of murder.
Speaking on the ABC's The Drum last night, experienced media law practitioner Justin Quill described the judgement as a "slam dunk", but said it was unlikely criminal charges would be laid as a result.
"[Ben Roberts-Smith] wanted money to make up for his reputation, and it's obviously turned out to be an own goal," he said.
"Criminal charges might occur, but they won't occur as a result of — or because of — this judgement," he said.
"No doubt the authorities will be looking at the evidence given in this case, but it won't influence their decision to charge or not charge Ben Roberts-Smith or any other soldier."
Could there be an appeal?
Arthur Moses SC, who acts for Mr Roberts-Smith, said he would assess the lengthy judgement.
He requested an extension to appeal, if Mr Roberts-Smith chooses to, and this was granted by the court.
