Ben Roberts-Smith’s main objective in suing the media companies and journalists is not the alleged defamation. His main goal is to avoid being charged with war crimes allegedly committed in Afghanistan and other crimes he has allegedly committed in Australia which would have a long jail sentence attached if he was charged and found guilty. So, there is no chance Roberts-Smith will be withdrawing the defamation case the same way Christian Porter and Alan Jones did when their defamation cases looked like exposing them for who they really are.
The legal game plan
Ben Roberts-Smith will see the defamation case through to the end hoping if he wins that will put pressure on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions not to charge him with criminal offences. And if he loses the defamation case, he will see that as him being in no worse a position than he would have been in if he hadn’t sued for defamation as he was already being accused of war crimes by the media and former soldiers on a regular basis.
The legal game plan that Ben Roberts-Smith is using is being run by Kerry Stokes and his right-hand man Bruce McWilliam who has been in court every day and who is an executive at Seven West Media. It’s a game plan I know very well as I have been on the receiving end of it since 2014 when Kerry Stokes started his numerous SLAPP lawsuits against me. Stokes’ legal game plan is detailed in the first 5 chapters of my latest book “Australia’s Paedophile Protection Racket”.
Bruce McWilliam (Far left) and Monica Allen outside court on the 9th of June 2021. Inset Kerry Stokes and Ben Roberts-Smith
Christian Porter and Alan Jones failed defamation cases
I published an article on the 16th of March 2021 titled “Alleged rapist Christian Porter copies failed strategy of alleged paedophile Alan Jones by instituting frivolous defamation proceedings” but people who are messaging on social media that they are waiting for Ben Roberts-Smith to cut and run like Christian Porter and Alan Jones will be waiting forever as it won’t happen fro the reason I already mentioned above.
Ben Roberts-Smith does not care about lying to the media and the public
Ben Roberts-Smith does not care what the media and the public think about him and he has been caught lying and deceiving numerous times. Last year it was exposed that Ben Roberts-Smith had 2 secret meetings with former AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty in 2018 who gave Ben Roberts-Smith inside information about the AFP’s investigation into Roberts-Smith. I wrote last year:
There is a powerful prima facie case that billionaire Kerry Stokes bribed AFP police with the assistance of former AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty to help Ben Robert-Smith fight murder and war crime allegations and Kerry Stokes is not denying it as the below email shows.
The fact that Mick Keelty illegally aided and abetted Ben Robert’s-Smith to obtain police information is beyond doubt as Mick Keelty has publicly admitted as much. (Click here to read more)
Ben Roberts-Smith and his lawyer Monica Allen
Ben Robert-Smith and his romantic relationship with his lawyer Monica Allen was widely reported in 2020. (Click here to read more) But they are apparently no longer in a relationship.
On the 9th of June 2021, a judge asked about Ben Roberts-Smith’s relationship with his lawyer Monica Allen after she wrote an affidavit on behalf of Roberts-Smith in proceedings that are against Roberts-Smith’s former wife. Roberts-Smith’s barrister eventually told the court that there was no relationship between Roberts-Smith and his lawyer which might be true but based on previous reports they clearly had a relationship not long ago which would also be relevant. I tweeted the below on Wednesday (9/6/21) (Click here to see on Twitter)
Whether Ben Roberts-Smith had a sexual relationship with his lawyer Monica Allen is one issue, which is dealt with in a report titled “Sex with clients and the ethical lawyer“. But if Ben Roberts-Smith’s barrister has lied to or deceived the court about the relationship then that is another issue that could be construed as contempt of court.
Intimidating witnesses – former Governor-General Quentin Bryce
Ben Roberts-Smith has been accused of trying to intimidate witnesses and is allegedly under investigation by the AFP for that, but he has also been accused of intimidating his own witnesses which seems like a bad joke but it is apparently true. The SMH reported:
News Corp’s The Australian newspaper reported on Saturday that Mr Roberts-Smith appeared on Dame Quentin’s doorstep in Brisbane last Wednesday with a bunch of flowers.
Sources said she was “horrified” to think she was getting caught up in his legal case as a character witness. It appeared to be an amazing coup for Mr Roberts-Smith that one of Australia’s most highly respected governors-general, who pinned the VC to his lapel, was prepared to take the stand in the high-profile case.
But there was a problem. Not only had Mr Roberts-Smith apparently not sought her permission to mention her name in court but worse, sources aware of the situation knew she had serious reservations about becoming personally involved. (Click here to read more)
On Tuesday (8/6/21) is was reported: “The barrister acting for Ben Roberts-Smith has told his defamation trial former governor-general Quentin Bryce won’t be giving evidence on behalf of the Victoria Cross recipient but “has not withdrawn her support”.” (Click here to read more)
Given that Quentin Bryce will not be giving evidence exactly what the true story is regarding her alleged support of Ben Roberts-Smith won’t be able to be tested in court.
Will Roberts-Smith call his boss at Seven West Media, Kerry Stokes, as a character witness?
Ben Roberts-Smith is being bankrolled by his boss Kerry Stokes who is also Chairman of the Australian War Memorial which is a major conflict of interest but that has not stopped Kerry from stumping up the cash and I doubt it would stop him from appearing as a character witness for Roberts-Smith.
The problem for Kerry Stokes is he has a history of giving false evidence and untrue evidence when he was previously in the witness stand which in effect makes him a perjurer. Stokes is not exactly the type of person Ben Roberts-Smith needs as a character witness.
Between 2006 to 2008 Stokes ran the infamous C7 legal case which cost Seven $200 million in legal fees which they are possibly still paying off today. To rub salt into the wound Kerry Stokes also hopped into the witness stand in the C7 matter and Justice Sackville said Stokes “gave evidence that he knew was not true” and evidence that was “deliberately false” which is the definition of perjury. (Click here to read more)
The hearing is estimated to go for another 9 weeks but Ben Roberts-Smith already looks in trouble with 21 soldiers, current and former, in line to give evidence against Ben Roberts-Smith.
Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.
If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
Categories: Kerry Stokes
According to Ben Roberts-Smith giving testimony in Court over the past two days, those accusing him of war crimes are simply jealous of his military achievements, namely his winning the Victoria Cross (VC). He says that his VC has planted a “target” on his back, and that the 21 witnesses called to give evidence against him are liars and filled with envy.
Over the years, 100 Australians have been awarded the VC – 96 under the previous Imperial honours system, and 4 under the relatively recent Australian honours system. As far as I can tell, not many (if any) of the other 99 VC winners were ever accused of war crimes. How does Roberts-Smith explain that he is the only VC recipient out of 100 winners to attract such allegations?
The persons making the allegations against Roberts-Smith are all serving soldiers or former soldiers. While I can accept that some of these people might be driven by envy and malice, how realistic is it that all 21 witnesses would be so driven? Surely some of these witnesses would be as brave, and as willing to serve their country, as Roberts-Smith claims to be? Bravery and willingness to serve are certainly two qualities any good soldier must have. But any good soldier must also abide by the Rules of Engagement that govern military action. It will be interesting to hear what the 21 witnesses have to say once Roberts-Smith has concluded his testimony.
Absolutely well laid out. My sentiments exactly. He is absolutely delusional to think that ALL 21 of these people are jealous of his medal. I would go so far to say that are likely to applaud him for his bravery but do know the truth behind the allegations levelled at him regarding the war crimes.
No wonder the Courts are clogged if this case goes to the reported ten weeks length. The only people to benefit will be the lawyers. Our justice system is overdue for a streamlining. I found out it could be done when my action proceeded in a Supreme Court without me being notified. That sounds like a quickie way to speed resolution, even in complicated matters.
Roberts-Smith is joking if he thinks others are out to get him because of jealousy. When a tribe member, soldiers in this instance, is in trouble, there is a strong bond between them to protect each other, whether they are guilty or not. So, the huge number that are willing to speak out against Roberts-Smith is a serious indication that he has done wrong, and done wrong big-time.
Also, how many other VC holders have had similar issues? None me thinks.
I find it wrong that people can give references for others when they have no idea what they were like. That Bryce and Stokes can support Roberts-Smith when they know nothing of him during his time in the army is ridiculous. Priests can be the most holiest and honourable people – that is until the vile abuses are discovered.
It will be interesting to see how much influence Stokes, AFP Commissioner Keelty & God only knows who else in high places will have on the Judge’s decisions throughout the proceedings. No wonder Smith didn’t want a jury to decide the outcome of his defamation case. The Judge has a lot of weight on his shoulders to follow the rule of law. He will be watched very closely by others in his profession & I’m sure KCA will be quick to see & report on any skullduggery that may take place & sneak under the radar.
Thank God that this is a Judge alone trial and he won’t be influenced by what has been written by journalists, especially those of the Defendant. The Judge will rely on the evidence presented. It is an equal playing field in that courtroom but not so outside it because of the power of the press.
At least Ben Roberts-Smith has one of the best defamation barristers that money can buy thanks to Kerry Stokes. That puts him on a level footing with Nine and its top gun barrister..
Putting aside the huge financial cost both sides of the Roberts-Smith defamation case will ultimately bear, it is fascinating to ponder one possible outcome of the trial. Specifically, it is fascinating to ponder a loss for Roberts-Smith.
If the Court finds Roberts-Smith was NOT defamed by Channel 9, Fairfax and the other respondents, many non-legal persons might ask an understandable question. Would such a decision imply that the Court believes Roberts-Smith is guilty of war crimes? The short answer is “no”.
A defamation trial is a civil matter. A war crimes trial is a criminal matter. In a defamation trial, the respondents (in this instance Channel 9, Fairfax), rather than a prosecutor, bear the burden of proof, but to a lower standard than that applying in a criminal trial. The standard of proof required in a civil trial is “on the balance of probabilities” whereas in a criminal trial the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”. In a criminal trial, Roberts-Smith would have the right to silence. In a defamation trial, to all intents and purposes, he enjoys no such right. Given that Roberts-Smith is the party who brought the defamation action in the first place, it would make no sense for him to exercise a right to silence.
Thus, in a strictly legal sense, a loss in his defamation case implies nothing about Roberts-Smith’s guilt or innocence regarding war crimes. Nevertheless, a loss in his current defamation trial presents an intriguing scenario in terms of whether Roberts-Smith will, or will not, be formally prosecuted for war crimes.
Some of the commenters talk of ‘a fair trial’. I suggest that concept is a rare bird in the Oz justice system. From my experience and research, the outcome will rest on money and which lawyer is the more (or at least) competent. With close to a thousand solicitors and barristers disbarred, fined or censured over the last two decades, you take your chances of’ a fair trial’.
No doubt the Morrison government also supports BRS’s action. They’ve buried the Brereton Report in an internal investigation, Dutton has reinstated medals stripped from the disgraced SAS unit, and he is now trying to shoot the messenger, academic Samantha Crompvoets, whose work helped uncover allegations. Dutton has refused to give her further defence work and is seeking legal advice to suppress her forthcoming book.
The establishment is going in to bat for BRS, hoping he wins and they don’t have to face the ugly truth of events in Afghanistan.
Will Howard be charged for war crimes, He sent them there on a lie