Ben Roberts-Smith Denies Afghanistan War Crime Charges in First

Published: 19 April 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

The Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith has publicly denied all allegations against him, declaring “I will never give up” as he addressed the media for the first time since his arrest over serious war crime murder charges linked to his military service in Afghanistan.

Speaking from the Gold Coast while on bail, Roberts-Smith strongly rejected claims that he was involved in the unlawful killing of unarmed civilians during his deployment with the Australian Special Air Service (SAS). He faces five charges of war crime murder, with prosecutors alleging he either personally carried out killings or ordered subordinates to do so while serving in Afghanistan.

The decorated former soldier said he had spent the past decade under what he described as a sustained effort to damage his reputation. “For the past 10 years, my family and I have been subject to a campaign to convince Australians that I’ve acted improperly in my service in Afghanistan,” he said, firmly maintaining that he categorically denies all allegations.

Roberts-Smith insisted that his actions during military service were always guided by training, rules of engagement, and personal values. “I always acted within my values, within my training and within the rules of engagement,” he said, adding that he remains proud of his service alongside fellow soldiers in Afghanistan.

The charges he faces relate to the alleged murders of five unarmed individuals, including a father and son identified in court documents as Mohammad Essa and Ahmadullah, a farmer named Ali Jan, and two detainees referred to as “person under control one and two.” According to prosecution filings, all incidents allegedly occurred in controlled environments where Australian forces held operational dominance.

Court documents, presented in a New South Wales local court, outline what prosecutors describe as “common themes” across the alleged incidents. These include claims that victims were unarmed, had been detained or restrained, and were questioned before being killed. The documents also allege that in some cases, weapons or evidence may have been placed near bodies after death in an attempt to present the killings as lawful combat actions.

The prosecution further claims that each of the incidents occurred outside active combat situations, with Australian forces allegedly in full control of the battlefield. The statement of facts argues that none of the victims were killed during immediate firefights, raising questions about whether the actions fall within the legal framework of military engagement.

A key element of the prosecution’s case involves testimony from three former soldiers who are expected to serve as witnesses. According to court filings, these individuals have admitted to their own involvement in killings they say were carried out under the direction or influence of Roberts-Smith, who was their superior officer at the time.

The documents state that each witness has provided written accounts describing their actions and allegedly witnessing additional unlawful killings during their deployment. These statements have not yet been tested in court, and their credibility will be a central issue in the upcoming trial proceedings.

Despite the gravity of the accusations, Roberts-Smith maintained his innocence and portrayed the legal proceedings as part of a broader effort to challenge his reputation. “I’d also like to say that I’m extremely proud of all of the men and women that served alongside me in Afghanistan,” he said, adding that the sacrifices of Australian personnel should not be forgotten.

He also expressed gratitude to his family, partner, and supporters, saying their backing has been crucial during what he described as an emotionally and legally challenging period. At the same time, he appealed for privacy, particularly for his children, criticising what he called a “sensational arrest” that turned his detention into a public spectacle.

Roberts-Smith said he was surprised and disappointed by the public nature of his arrest earlier this month, which occurred while he was on holiday with his partner and children. He argued that the handling of the arrest added unnecessary pressure on his family, who he said have already endured years of scrutiny.

Legal experts note that the case is among the most significant military-related criminal proceedings in recent Australian history, involving complex questions around battlefield conduct, rules of engagement, and accountability for elite special forces operations. However, all allegations remain untested in court, and Roberts-Smith is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The case also follows years of public attention and previous legal battles involving the former soldier, including civil defamation proceedings in which similar allegations were examined in detail. While those earlier cases raised serious questions, the current criminal charges represent a separate and far more serious legal threshold, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Roberts-Smith ended his statement without taking questions from journalists, reiterating his determination to fight the charges. “I understand this journey will be long. I understand this journey will be difficult,” he said. “But I can promise everybody that I have never run from a fight in my life. I will never give up and I will always be in the fight.”

The upcoming legal process is expected to draw significant public attention both in Australia and internationally, given Roberts-Smith’s decorated military record and the severity of the allegations. The case will likely examine classified military operations, battlefield decision-making, and witness testimony from former comrades, making it one of the most closely watched war crimes-related trials involving an Australian serviceman.

For now, Roberts-Smith remains free on bail as preparations continue for what is expected to be a lengthy and complex trial process. The outcome will determine not only his personal fate but also contribute to wider discussions about accountability and conduct within modern special forces operations.