Ben Roberts-Smith ordered the mock execution of an unarmed civilian during an SAS training drill in 2012, a former comrade has told the federal court in Sydney.
The court also heard on Tuesday that Roberts-Smith discussed “blooding” soldiers on their first tour of Afghanistan – having them kill a person on operation – and said to a comrade that another fellow soldier should not register a bullying complaint against him: “You tell that cunt he better not saying anything, or I’ll get him charged for war crimes.”
Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross, is suing the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times for defamation over a series of reports he alleges are defamatory and portray him as committing war crimes, including murder, as well as acts of bullying and domestic violence.
The newspapers are pleading a defence of truth. Roberts-Smith denies any wrongdoing.
On Tuesday, a former SAS comrade, anonymised before court as Person 19, appeared under force of subpoena as a witness for the newspapers, to give evidence on his service alongside Roberts-Smith.
He told the court that during a training drill at the Lancelin barracks, his SAS patrol, led by Roberts-Smith, was conducting a “live-fire” exercise, training for an assault on an Afghan village. The exercise involved other soldiers dressed as Afghan non-combatants.
He said that, towards the conclusion of the drill, the soldiers were standing in a semi-circle inside a mock compound, similar to those found in Afghan villages. One soldier was acting as an Afghan national, dressed in traditional clothing, and constrained, kneeling, facing a wall.
Person 19 told the court Roberts-Smith said to a new soldier on the patrol, Person 10, “I want you to shoot the PUC”. PUC is a military acronym for “person under control”.
“I remember that distinctly, it was unusual, I remember seeing the look on [the kneeling soldier’s] face. I remember Person 10 saying ‘bang’ or they shot the ground, to the effect that they had shot the person,” Person 19 said in his evidence.
It is unlawful under international humanitarian law, and against the rules of engagement for Australian troops, to shoot a person under control who does not pose any threat.
Person 19 also told the court of instructions given by Roberts-Smith and another senior SAS soldier, Person 31, about assaults on compounds during another 2012 training drill. Person 19 said Roberts-Smith and Person 31 had said drones watching the Australians’ actions would be “pushed off to observe another area so they weren’t observing what was happening in the compound”.
“The officers would be kept outside the compound until we would be ready to receive them.”
Person 19 told the court: “at which stage Mr Roberts-Smith said, ‘that’s when any people that we suspect of being enemy combatants, we take them into a room and shoot the cunts’.”
Person 19 said the soldiers were told they could carry with them weapons or radios – known as “throw-downs” – which could be placed on the bodies of those killed, and “it could be submitted as evidence that they were killed during the assault”.
Person 19 could not recall which of Roberts-Smith or Person 35 said which words about throw-downs but they were speaking collectively.
Person 19 told the court Roberts-Smith had used the term “blooding” during a conversation at a Perth cafe in 2012.
“I heard Mr Roberts-Smith say Person 10 needed to be blooded, to blood the rookie. He needed to prove himself. He then said I didn’t need to prove myself as I’d already done previous deployments.”
Person 19 said he understood blooding to mean “new members of the troop or patrol who had never deployed before or had never shot anyone had to prove themselves by showing they had the … fortitude to shoot a prisoner if required”.
Person 19 told the court that Person 10 had contacted him, while on deployment in 2012, alleging Roberts-Smith had punched him following an operation.
Person 19 told the court he spoke with Roberts-Smith about the potential complaint, and said Roberts-Smith said: “You tell that cunt he better not saying anything, or I’ll get him charged for war crimes.”
Last year, in his evidence to the court, Roberts-Smith said he never heard the term “blooding” until after he left the military, and said he had only heard of the term “throw-downs” in the context of them “being used by other nations”.
Person 19 also told the court he met several times with journalist Chris Masters, a respondent in the case whom he regards as a friend, and discussed SAS matters, including rumours within the regiment that Roberts-Smith did not deserve his decorations.
It was put to Person 19 he was giving evidence to support Masters’ defence in this case.
“No. If I had a choice, I wouldn’t be here,” Person 19 said.
During cross-examination, Person 19 said Masters had told him that Andrew Hastie – a former captain in the SAS and now the assistant defence minister – had had an “altercation” with Roberts-Smith in Afghanistan. Hastie is scheduled to give evidence later in this trial.
Person 19 was also forced to defend his own military service in court. In 2012, five days before he was due to deploy to Afghanistan, Person 19 was court-martialled for taking body armour, ammunition and grenades off a military base in his private car, which was then stolen and involved in a fatal accident.
Person 19 was prohibited from deploying to Afghanistan. Two years later, Person 19 was dismissed from the military for signing a false declaration about his living arrangements with his then girlfriend in a military-funded house, and was convicted of “recklessly gaining a financial advantage”.
He was sentenced to 42 days confinement in a military prison.
Under cross-examination, Arthur Moses SC, put it to Person 19 that he resented Roberts-Smith for raising the ammunition issue up the chain of military command.
“You harbour anger towards him because he had to raise the issue of ammunition in your vehicle,” Moses said.
“No,” Person 19 said.
With the witness out of the room, Moses told the court Person 19 was “a witness with no credit” who was inconsistent in his evidence. “He flip-flops, especially when he gives evidence about hotly contested conversations.”
Later, Moses put to Person 19 that he was “quite willing to swear a false statutory declaration”, and his evidence could not be relied upon.
Person 19 said: “I lost a 14-year career to a couple of very silly errors of judgment.”
Moses asked whether he was disappointed he was barred from going to Afghanistan in 2012.
“It ruined my career,” Person 19 said.
Moses said Person 19’s evidence was designed “to damage Mr Roberts-Smith”.
“I completely reject that statement,” Person 19 said.
“You’re giving false evidence to the court,” Moses said.
“I disagree,” Person 19 responded.
The trial, before Justice Anthony Besanko, continues.
