Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living war veteran, faces five counts of war crimes murder related to the killing of unarmed Afghan civilians. The charges mark the first time a recipient of the Victoria Cross — Australia’s highest military honour — has been criminally prosecuted for conduct in a war zone.
But the significance of this case extends beyond one soldier. It exposes the structural near-impossibility of prosecuting war crimes committed in remote, inaccessible conflict zones — and raises the question of whether Australia’s legal system is equipped to deliver accountability for what its own investigators have described as a pattern of unlawful killings.
What the Criminal Charges Add to What We Already Know
The allegations against Roberts-Smith are not new in substance. A 2023 Federal Court defamation ruling found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had taken part in at least four murders — ordering unarmed men shot dead to “blood” rookie soldiers, kicking a handcuffed farmer off a cliff, and involvement in the death of a captured fighter whose prosthetic leg was taken as a trophy and later used as a drinking vessel. Roberts-Smith lost his appeal in 2024.
What is new is the legal standard. The criminal charges — including war crime of murder, jointly commissioning a murder, and aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a murder — must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities. The civil finding that Roberts-Smith committed murder does not automatically translate into a criminal conviction. The prosecution must build its case independently, from the ground up, to a far higher evidentiary bar.
Roberts-Smith has denied all wrongdoing and previously described the allegations as “egregious” and “spiteful.”
A Prosecution Built on Absence
The criminal case stems from the Brereton Report, which found evidence that elite Australian soldiers unlawfully killed civilians in Afghanistan and recommended criminal investigation of multiple current or former ADF members. A specialist body, the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI), was established to pursue those cases.
OSI officials have described the challenges with uncommon frankness. Investigators must build murder cases from events that occurred in remote Afghan villages, thousands of kilometres from Australia. They lack access to Afghanistan itself, to the crime scenes, to forensic evidence, and to the remains of the deceased. That list of what investigators lack reads like a catalogue of everything a normal homicide investigation depends on.
Physical evidence is largely inaccessible. Crime scenes have been altered or destroyed over more than a decade. Witnesses are scattered across countries, and some may be hostile to Australian investigators or unreachable. The prosecution will depend heavily on witness testimony, military records, and circumstantial evidence.
The scale of the difficulty is reflected in the results so far. The OSI has charged only one other person. Dozens of alleged unlawful killings were documented. One prosecution, and now a second, have followed.
Convicting a decorated soldier of war crimes under those constraints — in a courtroom rather than a battlefield — may prove to be as difficult an operation as any conducted in Afghanistan itself.
The Whistleblower Contradiction
If the prosecution’s structural challenges explain why accountability has been slow, the treatment of David McBride explains why it has been politically corrosive.
McBride, a former Australian army lawyer, faced legal consequences for his role in revealing information about alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. He blew the whistle. The man he helped expose has only now faced criminal charges.
The juxtaposition is difficult to reconcile. The government has moved to strip medals from Afghanistan unit commanders — an acknowledgment that something went wrong at an institutional level. Yet the person who helped bring that wrongdoing to light was prosecuted before the person accused of committing it. Australian Greens MP David Shoebridge has called for McBride’s release, arguing the disparity undermines public trust in the accountability process.
This is not a contradiction unique to Australia. Governments that pursue war crimes prosecutions routinely find themselves caught between the imperative of accountability and the institutional instinct to punish those who force uncomfortable truths into public view. But the Roberts-Smith case makes the tension unusually visible. A decorated national hero faces trial. The whistleblower who set the process in motion has already paid a price.
What This Case Is Really Testing
The trajectory of Roberts-Smith’s public standing is itself revealing. When Nine newspapers first published reports of the allegations, he was regarded as a national hero — a Victoria Cross recipient who had single-handedly overpowered Taliban fighters attacking his SAS platoon. Rather than waiting for the legal process, he launched what became a seven-year, multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against the journalists. The gamble failed badly, producing a detailed judicial record of the very conduct he sought to suppress.
That civil trial was the first time in history any court examined claims of war crimes by Australian forces. The criminal trial, whenever it proceeds, will almost certainly be longer and more contested.
Human rights advocates have said that proper investigation and prosecution of alleged war crimes by members of the Australian special forces are essential to ensuring justice for Afghan victims and to Australia meeting its obligations under international law. Officials have stated that the allegations of misconduct were confined to a small minority of ADF personnel and emphasized that most members serve with distinction.
Both statements can be true simultaneously. But the harder question is whether the legal system can deliver on the promise of accountability when every structural factor — distance, time, inaccessible evidence, scattered witnesses — works against it.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the case, citing ongoing court proceedings.
What makes this prosecution significant is not just the identity of the defendant, but what it tests about the limits of war crimes accountability. Australia sent its best-trained special forces to fight a long war in difficult terrain. Its own investigators documented what they found. The question now is whether the legal system can close the gap between what is known and what can be proved — and whether a nation that celebrates its soldiers is willing to hold them to the laws it claims to uphold.
Photo by Ozan Güvenç on Pexels