On the last day of the former soldier’s evidence,it fell to lawyer Bruce McClintock to coax from the witness a demonstration of the emotional impact on him.
At the heart of the case will be whether Roberts-Smith will walk away labelled a murderer,or whether the Victoria Cross-winner will retrieve his place as one of Australia’s greatest war heroes.
Samantha Crompvoets says she’s unapologetic about raising issues she believes are significantly jeopardising the reputation and capability of defence.
Today on Please Explain,legal affairs reporter Michaela Whitbourn joins Nathanael Cooper as the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case reaches the end of its first week.
With Ben Roberts-Smith in the witness box for the first time,and the publications giving an outline of their defence for the first time,the battle lines have been drawn.
After five hours of the ex-soldier’s evidence,the room fell silent. Heads rose from their notes. It was almost shocking for a man so brimming with such chutzpah to stop talking.
Senior Defence officials warned the government that failing to strip military honours from special forces troops would cause further harm to Afghan victims and Australia’s relationship with Afghanistan.
There is little middle ground here. Presiding over courtroom 18D at the Federal Court in Sydney,Justice Anthony Besanko,will have to decide which version the evidence supports.
Mr Roberts-Smith’s barrister indicated that he will seek the largest aggravated damages payout in Australian history.
Dozens of former soldiers are expected to give evidence in the defamation action launched by the highly decorated Ben Roberts-Smith.
Lawyers at a pre-trial hearing clashed over whether the war hero’s ex-wife had provided newspaper journalists with USB sticks containing photographs of soldiers drinking from a prosthetic leg.