Some court judgements are easy to decipher. Others are difficult.
In the case of decorated war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith versus newspapers owned by Nine Entertainment Co, the decision has plenty of complexities.
The verdict handed down by Justice Anthony Besanko in the Federal Court on Thursday has been said to "vindicate" news articles which published allegations that Mr Roberts-Smith committed war crimes.
He dismissed defamation action against three newspapers and journalists, after finding allegations of murder and breaching the rules of military engagement had been established by "substantial truth".
In the civil case, Nine's lawyers did not need to meet the high-bar of criminal proof, and Mr Roberts-Smith has not been charged with any criminal offences.
Justice Besanko's full reasons for making his judgement are yet to be released, but he found some serious claims made in the articles, published in 2018, had been substantiated, including:
- That Mr Roberts-Smith murdered an unarmed man, named Ali Jan, by kicking him off a cliff in Afghanistan and procuring soldiers under his command to shoot him
- That Mr Roberts-Smith broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal
- That he committed murder by pressuring an inexperienced SAS trooper to execute an elderly, unarmed Afghan to "blood the rookie"
- That he committed murder by machine gunning a man with a prosthetic leg
- That he was so callous and inhumane that he took the prosthetic leg back to Australia and encouraged other soldiers to use it as a novelty beer-drinking vessel
- That while, as deputy commander of an SAS patrol in 2009, he authorised the execution of an unarmed Afghan by a junior trooper
- That during a deployment in 2010, he bashed an unarmed Afghan in the face and kneed him in the stomach, alarming two patrol commanders who ordered him to back off
- That, as patrol commander in 2012, he authorised the assault of an unarmed Afghan who was in custody and posed no threat
- That he engaged in a campaign of bullying against a small and quiet soldier named Person 1, which included threats of violence
- That he assaulted an unarmed Afghan in 2012
Justice Besanko found Nine had not established particulars of truth for two further allegations of murder reported in their stories.
They related to separate missions to Syahchow and Faisal, in Afghanistan, both in 2012.
In total, there were six allegations of murder across five separate incidents.
The court found Nine established the substantial truth of four killings during the mammoth trial, which lasted 110 days.
Other allegations the news organisations were not able to establish the substantial truth of were covered by the defence of "contextual truth".
That was because, the court heard, Mr Roberts-Smith's reputation was so damaged by the other findings that these other allegations could not harm it further.
The imputations included an alleged act of domestic violence committed against Mr Roberts-Smith's former girlfriend, known in court as Person 17.
Justice Besanko found her evidence was "not sufficiently reliable" to form the basis that the assault did occur.
Another related to alleged threats Mr Roberts-Smith made against a soldier codenamed Trooper J.
Mr Roberts-Smith was accused of saying he would report the trooper to the International Criminal Court unless he provided an account of a friendly fire incident.
The court heard Justice Besanko was not satisfied the evidence was sufficient to support the claims printed by the newspapers.
Both of these incidents were covered by contextual truth.
Mr Roberts-Smith's barrister, Arthur Moses SC, told media he would review the judgement to inform a potential appeal.
The matter will return to court for a directions hearing on June 29.
