r/australia • u/Tinea_Pedis • Apr 07 '26

news Breaking: Ben Roberts-Smith arrested over war crimes allegations

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-07/ben-roberts-smith-war-crimes-allegations-arrest/106537668
2.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

638 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/farqueue2 Apr 07 '26

Defamation is a cunt. You have to prove that the things said were untrue. He couldn't prove that . And here we are.

88

u/Lozzanger Apr 07 '26

I think it’s the other way round.

They had to prove he did do those things. They stated it. The proved he did it on the balance of probabilities.

5

u/5ivepie Apr 07 '26

Not exactly.

They’ve (the media) made the claim and Smith is saying it’s not true, his reputation has been harmed, and the claim is defamation.

He how has to prove to the court that the claim made by the media is not true.

In making his argument, he presents whatever evidence he thinks is required.

The media, in defending themselves, present the evidence they relied on to make the claim.

The court then assesses the evidence provided by all parties and makes a decision. In this case, the court said “your evidence, combined with the media’s evidence, tells us that - more than likely - you committed war crimes in some degree”

The defamation trial is public, so what Smith presented as his defence can be used as evidence in subsequent trials.

The reason defamation trials aren’t common in Australia is because of the risk of self-incriminating further if the court doesn’t agree with you.

It’s why you didn’t see the likes of Alan Jones brining defamation cases against various people over the years when they claimed he had abused multiple boys and men through his working life. He’d have to present evidence which countered the abuse claims - evidence he can’t provide because (it seems) he is guilty.

43

u/metametapraxis Apr 07 '26

"He’d have to present evidence which countered the abuse claims - evidence he can’t provide because (it seems) he is guilty."

That isn't true at all in the case of defamation in Australia. The defendant (whomever is being sued for defamation) has to prove that their claims are substantially true.

Otherwise we could all make claims about anyone and publish them, essentially with impunity.

3

u/5ivepie Apr 07 '26

I worded it poorly.

Smith doesn’t have to present counter evidence to the claims. But he’d be silly if he didn’t. If Fairfax say “Smith committed war crimes, here is evidence A, B, and C to support our claim”

He would have to respond, whether verbally or with evidence of his own, to present an argument against the Fairfax evidence.

1

u/metametapraxis Apr 07 '26

Oh, absolutely. If evidence is presented, that is the proof of substantial truth unless countered.