From Pedestal to Prison: Australia’s Most Decorated Soldier Charged With Afghan War Crimes

Ben Roberts-Smith was once the face of a nation’s pride: the towering former Special Air Service Regiment corporal who had shaken hands with the Queen, been named Australian Father of the Year, and had his combat uniform hung at the Australian War Memorial as a monument to valor.That image of national heroism was shattered on April 7, 2026, when Australian Federal Police arrested Mr. Roberts-Smith at Sydney Airport as he stepped off a flight from Brisbane, charging him with five counts of murder as a war crime in a move that has deeply polarized the country.The 47-year-old spent ten days in custody at Silverwater Correctional Complex before a judge granted bail on April 17, citing “exceptional circumstances” — noting that Mr. Roberts-Smith would otherwise face “years and years” in prison before his case went to trial. He was released subject to strict conditions and a $250,000 surety. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett told reporters at a news conference in Sydney that it would be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan and were detained, unarmed, and under the control of Australian Defense Force members when they were killed.Ms. Barrett said it would further be alleged that the victims were shot by the accused or by subordinate members acting on his orders and in his presence.(Unlike in the United States, where prosecutors announce charges and outline the government’s case, in Australia the federal police commissioner routinely addresses the press at arrest.) A status hearing in the case is scheduled for June 5, with a trial date yet to be set, but expected in early 2027. Mr. Roberts-Smith will face a judge and jury in a state supreme court, not a court martial.Mr. Roberts-Smith has always denied wrongdoing. In a public statement on April 19, two days after his release on bail, he formally denied all allegations. Throughout an earlier civil trial to hear a defamation claim brought by Mr. Roberts-Smith, his legal team advanced a layered defense of his actions in Afghanistan. He denied the central allegations — insisting that men killed at Whiskey 108 in April 2009 were active insurgents who emerged from a concealed tunnel, not unarmed prisoners, and that Ali Jan, allegedly kicked handcuffed off a cliff at Darwan before being shot, was a Taliban fighter rather than a civilian detainee. His lawyers further argued he had been targeted by envious former comrades whose testimony was contradicted by official patrol debriefs. His supporters now add a further layer for the criminal trial: that key Afghan witnesses who testified against him openly expressed hostility toward Australian soldiers as “infidels,” and that such accounts of events reconstructed years after the fact by illiterate subsistence farmers from a Taliban-controlled village are unreliable. “This is a very significant case,” Creighton University School of Law Professor Michael Kelly tells the New York Sun, underscoring that one can “count on one hand the number of coalition troops who have been prosecuted for war crimes committed in Afghanistan.”Mr. Roberts-Smith is only the second Australian to be charged with war crimes offenses in Afghanistan, and the most high-profile. The first was former SAS soldier Oliver Schulz, arrested in March 2023 and charged with the murder of an unarmed Afghan man, Dad Mohammad, whose helmet camera footage allegedly shows him being shot three times in the head in a wheat field in Uruzgan Province in May 2012. Mr. Schulz has pleaded not guilty. His trial, plagued by delays, is not expected to begin before 2027.Prosecuting one’s own troops demonstrates that the state “takes the Geneva Conventions very seriously and is determined to implement its legal treaty obligations no matter what the political consequences,” he says.“The alleged actions of Roberts-Smith break down that common reciprocity premise and weaken the trust of other treaty partners during a conflict,” Mr. Kelly argues.But can Australia — a nation that has long wrapped its identity in the legend of the Anzac warrior, where valor on the battlefield is treated as something close to sacred — deliver justice for five unnamed Afghan men killed in a distant war without tearing itself apart in the process?Profile of a HeroMr. Roberts-Smith joined the Australian Regular Army in 1996, served two tours in East Timor, and in 2003 was posted to the Special Air Service Regiment. He was on his first tour of Afghanistan in 2006 when he was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions as a patrol scout and sniper. Five years later, his reputation reached its peak.His Victoria Cross action occurred during his fifth tour of Afghanistan in an operation to hunt for a senior Taliban commander. In an assault against an enemy fortification on June 11, 2010, he exposed his position to draw fire away from members of his patrol who were pinned down, then stormed two enemy machine-gun posts at close range and silenced them, allowing the assault team to gain the initiative.Mr. Roberts-Smith became a household name across Australia when he was awarded the Victoria Cross in 2011, a medal reserved for only the most courageous wartime exploits. He met Queen Elizabeth II, had his portrait hung at the Australian War Memorial, and was honored as the nation’s Father of the Year. He was deployed to Afghanistan on six separate occasions between 2006 and 2012, making him one of the most combat-experienced soldiers of his generation.The charges allege a different story from those same deployments. Mr. Roberts-Smith is now accused of the murder of five unarmed Afghan men who were detained and under the control of Australian forces, by either personally shooting them or ordering his subordinate soldiers to execute them during operations in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.This is a war crime because international law strictly prohibits the killing of prisoners, detainees, or civilians who are no longer participating in hostilities and are under the captor’s control. Such deliberate executions of protected persons are considered grave breaches of the laws of armed conflict.Ben Saul, Challis Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, tells the Sun that while Australia has rightly taken these allegations seriously, it is “disappointing that it has taken so long to pursue justice.”Mr. Saul notes that “most of the dozens of soldiers allegedly involved in executing at least 39 unarmed civilians and prisoners are unlikely to be prosecuted, that most victims have not received any compensation, and that some parts of the Australian population believe that soldiers should not face justice even for murdering civilians.”Strategic BlunderMr. Roberts-Smith’s road to Silverwater was long. War crimes allegations first surfaced publicly in 2017 and gained explosive momentum in 2018, when investigative journalists Nick McKenzie, Chris Masters, and David Wroe published reports in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and the Canberra Times linking Mr. Roberts-Smith to unlawful killings in Afghanistan.Rather than go quiet, Mr. Roberts-Smith sued them for defamation in what became one of the most expensive civil trials in Australian legal history. It was a strategic miscalculation.To defend themselves, the journalists relied on proving in court that their reporting was accurate, that Mr. Roberts-Smith had, in fact, committed war crimes. In 2023, the court found sufficient evidence that Mr. Roberts-Smith had executed or directed the execution of four Afghan detainees, with the trial judge writing that he had “disgraced his country.”Because that trial was a civil proceeding, lawyers did not need to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt; they only needed to meet the lesser standard that the allegations were true on the balance of probabilities.Mr. Roberts-Smith lost his appeal against that ruling in May 2025. The Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously found that he had not been defamed, ordering him to pay the respondents’ legal costs. The High Court dismissed a final appeal bid in September 2025. The criminal charges he now faces require a far higher bar: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A retired American Air Force lieutenant colonel, Rachel Van Landingham, tells the Sun that this standard is “hugely more difficult to reach than a mere preponderance of the evidence, and that gap is exacerbated here with no bodies, no forensics, no murder weapon, etc.”In plain terms, a civil court already decided it was more likely than not that these killings happened. A criminal conviction, however, demands something far more certain, something that no reasonable person could doubt. With no physical evidence to anchor that certainty, prosecutors must clear a higher wall with fewer handholds.“However, what we do have here is potentially even more powerful, the testimony of fellow SAS operators, whose honor and character transcend the incredibly powerful desire to cover for one of their own,” says Ms. VanLandingham, who serves as Co-Associate Dean of Research at Southwestern Law School.A Culture of Macho Excess?The Roberts-Smith prosecution does not stand alone. In 2020, the so-called Brereton Report was released publicly, alleging 39 “murders” of civilians and prisoners by Australian soldiers across at least 23 separate incidents. Uncovering credible evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Australian special forces in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016, the inquiry recommended that 36 incidents be referred to the Australian Federal Police for criminal investigationFrank Ledwidge, Senior Lecturer in Strategy and Law at the University of Portsmouth, tells the Sun that the allegations constitute a breach of professional conduct.“What we saw was not allegations of mistakes or confusion, but rather allegations of deliberate actions,” Mr. Ledwidge says. Such alleged actions, he suggests, highlight a macho-type military culture that can become entrenched in certain environments.“The allegations could not be more starkly against any idea of professional military conduct,” he says.(Unlike in most Western countries, where soldiers who commit crimes on deployment are tried in military courts, Australia’s Brereton Report explicitly recommended the civilian route for war crimes prosecutions — partly because many of the accused are no longer serving, and partly to ensure full independence from the military.) For victims of abuses in Afghanistan, the Roberts-Smith arrest represents a long-awaited step toward accountability. However, most victims have not received any compensation to date, despite a government scheme announced in late 2024, notes Mr. Saul.When Western countries allow impunity for their own forces, “it sends a signal to other countries that war crimes are permissible and justice is optional,” argues Mr. Saul, who currently serves as United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism.Yet, while critics say the charges are a necessary reckoning, Mr. Roberts-Smith’s supporters argue he is being unfairly targeted — and the backlash has been swift, loud, and politically charged. The arrest sparked an outcry from everyday Australians, veterans and former police officers, with petitions demanding his release gathering tens of thousands of signatures within days. A “Free Ben Roberts-Smith” protest rally took place on April 26 outside Melbourne’s Parliament House. The manner of the arrest itself has also become a flashpoint. Mr. Roberts-Smith had made multiple previous offers to turn himself in to the Australian Federal Police if they intended to charge him. Yet, officers intercepted him publicly at Sydney Airport, in front of his teenage daughters, as cameras rolled. Critics accused the AFP of theater; some serving officers within the force reportedly described it as grandstanding.Even X owner Elon Musk weighed in, calling the arrest “insane.”Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was among the most vocal, arguing it is “wrong to judge the actions of men in mortal combat by the standards of ordinary civilian life,” and questioning why no commanding officers detected or acted on an alleged culture of brutality during the deployments themselves. Former Prime Minister John Howard said the arrest would “tug at the heartstrings” of millions of Australians, describing Mr. Roberts-Smith as the “modern personification of the great Anzac tradition.”One Nation leader Pauline Hanson called the arrest “an absolute setup,” declaring she would not “abandon him like so many other politicians.” Mining billionaire Gina Rinehart said she “didn’t understand” the rationale for the charges and hoped “compassion and the Aussie spirit” would be extended to Mr. Roberts-Smith and his family.The fault lines run deeper than politics. For many Australians, particularly veterans and those with ties to the defense community, the case strikes at something close to a civic religion: the belief that the men sent to fight in distant wars on the nation’s behalf deserve protection, not prosecution, when they come home.The likely trial will test Australia’s capacity to hold its most celebrated warriors accountable. Anticipating a defense built around muddied narratives, Mr. Ledwidge counters that “the rules of armed conflict are actually quite clear.”“When you step outside them, you’re outside them,” he adds. “The danger is when people try to justify those actions after the fact.”

From Pedestal to Prison: Australia’s Most Decorated Soldier Charged With Afghan War Crimes

From Pedestal to Prison: Australia’s Most Decorated Soldier Charged With Afghan War Crimes

More from the New York Sun

Israel Launches Criminal Probe Into Killing of Young Gazan Girl Commemorated in Hollywood Film

Harry and Meghan’s Shocking ‘Reverse Megxit’ — a Secret Reportedly Kept From King — Escalates Pressure on William To Forgive

The Sleight of Hand of Fiat Money

AOC Offers Increasingly Coveted Endorsement to Ed Markey in Massachusetts Senate Race

Could Acclaimed Family Drama ‘Fjord’ Be Seen as Too MAGA for Awards Season Glory?

NCAA Blasts Judge’s Ruling Permitting NFL Players To Return to College

‘Blood Shine’ Is a Horror Film With an Unusual Amount of Taste

City To Offer Financial Boost to Stores Threatened by Mamdani’s Gastronoms

More from the New York Sun

Israel Launches Criminal Probe Into Killing of Young Gazan Girl Commemorated in Hollywood Film

Harry and Meghan’s Shocking ‘Reverse Megxit’ — a Secret Reportedly Kept From King — Escalates Pressure on William To Forgive

The Sleight of Hand of Fiat Money

AOC Offers Increasingly Coveted Endorsement to Ed Markey in Massachusetts Senate Race

Could Acclaimed Family Drama ‘Fjord’ Be Seen as Too MAGA for Awards Season Glory?

NCAA Blasts Judge’s Ruling Permitting NFL Players To Return to College

‘Blood Shine’ Is a Horror Film With an Unusual Amount of Taste

City To Offer Financial Boost to Stores Threatened by Mamdani’s Gastronoms