Ben Roberts-Smith’s chances of getting bail for 5 alleged war crime murders are very slim given the case against him is strong and because he has a recent history of trying to intimidate witnesses.
If Ben Roberts-Smith’s lawyers thought he had a good chance of getting bail they would have applied for bail on Wednesday (8/4/26), the day after he was jailed when they were before the bail court, but they didn’t.
Instead, Roberts-Smith’s lawyers have maneuvered to give themselves more time to prepare, which will give Roberts-Smith the best possible chance of getting bail, and it is now set down for Friday (17/4/26).
This article is a follow-up to my previous article “How Kerry Stokes’ “help” landed Ben Roberts-Smith 5 war crime murder charges.”
But before we get into Ben Roberts-Smith’s chances of getting bail we should take a quick look at a key precedent that might guide the judge in making their decision whether or not to grant bail.
Former SAS soldier Oliver Schulz was charged with one war crime murder in March 2023 and granted bail. He’s still on bail awaiting trial which is set down to start in the NSW Supreme Court in 2027.
The ABC reported (28/3/23):
A former Australian special forces soldier who was charged with a war crime related to his deployment in Afghanistan has been granted bail, after a Sydney magistrate accepted he was in a potentially dangerous position in custody.
Magistrate Jennifer Atkinson granted bail, finding there were exceptional circumstances in the case to justify the decision.
Mr Schulz appeared via audio-visual link and kept his eyes down as he learnt that he had received bail.
The bail conditions include a security deposit of $200,000, daily reporting to police, and a nightly curfew. (Click here to read more)
Some might think that given Oliver Schulz was granted bail for one alleged murder with a security deposit of $200,000 then Ben Roberts-Smith should agree to pay a security deposit of $1,000,000 and that will be sufficient to be granted bail.
The difference between Ben Roberts-Smith situation and Oliver Schulz is great, so there is no like for like comparison.
There are 3 key differences between Ben Roberts-Smith and Oliver Schulz.
Firstly, the chances of Ben Roberts-Smith doing a long stretch in jail are a lot greater given he is facing five murder charges compared to Oliver Schulz’s one murder charge.
Secondly, a lot of witnesses and evidence against Ben Roberts-Smith has already been tested in court during Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial and the judge found on the balance of probabilities that Ben Roberts-Smith was guilty of four murders.
A key element that a prosecutor has to prove to have bailed refused is that they have a strong case.
Having a judge of the Federal Court of Australia publish a lengthy judgment, that was supported by three judges who heard the appeal, find that on the balance of probabilities that Ben Roberts-Smith was guilty of four murders says the prosecution has a strong case.
Also, given law enforcement have better access to evidence such as phone tapping and video surveillance than Nine Entertainment had in defending Roberts-Smiths defamation claim you would expect that the prosecutors have a stronger case then what was before the Federal Court of Australia judges.
Thirdly, Ben Roberts-Smith has recent, and extensive, history of trying to intimidate witnesses for his defamation case which is a massive problem for Ben Roberts-Smith’s bail application.
Previous history of intimidating witnesses is an obstacle that Oliver Schulz did not have to overcome and that is one of the key reasons you can’t compare Ben Roberts-Smith’s bail application to Oliver Schulz’s bail application.
Ben Roberts-Smith interfering and intimidating with witnesses
During the course of Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case he:
- Asked his ex-wife to lie about his affair or she would lose the children.
- Intimidated witnesses such as the false complaint to the AFP about Person 6 having weapons at his house. The AFP then raided Person 6’s house and found nothing.
- Roberts-Smith sent threatening letters to a serving SAS soldier from a Channel Seven office and tried to cover it up by asking someone else to take responsibility.
What the judge needs to consider
Ben Roberts-Smith will be before a judge of the Local Court next Friday (17/4/26) for a “Bail review” and the judge will have to weigh up all the factors.
Ben Roberts-Smith is charged with 5 murders and you would expect bail to be refused for that reason alone, because he only has to be found guilty of one murder charge and he is looking at a lengthy sentence.
And if Roberts-Smith is found guilty of all 5 murders he might never get out of jail.
The judge will have to ask themselves: If Ben Roberts-Smith is prepared to intimidate witnesses during a defamation case is he likely to try to intimidate witnesses during his criminal trial for 5 murders where he is looking at the prospect of life in jail if found guilty?
When you add the 5 murder charges and the findings of the 4 Federal Court of Australia judges to Ben Roberts-Smith’s recent witness intimidation there is just no way he should be granted bail.
No matter what the result at the bail review next Friday, it is something that will be debated by the public for a long time, and it is likely to be appealed by the losing side.
This story has a thousand moving parts and I have tried to just focus on the key ones regarding Ben Roberts-Smith arrest and jailing in this article and the previous article. I’ll do a broader more in depth article soon. Until then, you can read the numerous previous articles I have written on this matter by clicking here.
Admin: Twenty weeks ago, I launched a campaign with a simple goal: find 200 new monthly supporters so I can keep doing this work as a fully independent journalist, running this website and the YouTube channel without corporate backing or paywalls.
Since then, 165 wonderful people have stepped up and become monthly supporters. That’s huge, thank you!
We’re now at 35 to go.
If you’ve been enjoying the work and aren’t yet supporting monthly, I’d be incredibly grateful if you’d consider joining them. Here’s the situation:
Like most independent journalists, I’m basically a one-person small business. Right now, a lot of us are feeling the squeeze, just like many small businesses and households are. To stay afloat and keep bringing you the reporting I do, I need roughly 200 more people chipping in whatever they can comfortably afford each month.
Anything from $3 to $100 (or whatever works for your budget) makes a real difference. There’s no lock-in, you can cancel or adjust anytime.
If that feels doable for you right now, you can see all the options on the donations page by clicking here.
Your support, whether it’s a monthly donation, a one-time donation, or just sharing the work, is what keeps independent voices like this one alive.
Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate 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.
For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here
Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.
Discover more from Kangaroo Court of Australia
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Australian Defence Force
Ahhhh, welcome to “freedom and democracy”, where crimes are the norm and very few people are ever held accountable for them. I suspect that “they” let Ben fall because the ones higher up get protected no matter what the cost.
Just take a look from the top down: Netanyahu and the Palestinian genocide and theft of their land; Trump and 160+ Minab school girls blaming AI and even Iran; the churches and reshuffling of known pedophiles to hide them; etc, etc. We only know of relatively few of them.
Hence lawful rebellion is the only way.
The school girls were killed by a drop short Irian missile
They must be particularly ineffective, NY Times lists 39 hospitals struck and Tehran lists over 350 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/09/world/middleeast/us-israel-strikes-iran-structures-damage.html because it is totally out of character for the outlaw US or “Israel” to target civilians.
I wasn’t surprised to see John Howard come out of the woodwork in support of Ben Roberts-Smith. Only for Deputy Sheriff Howard sucking up to his boss GWB, Roberts wouldn’t have been in Afghanistan in the first place, and we wouldn’t be in this ghastly mess of rank hypocrisy and stupidity. He’s also urging us to get into the Iran war so we can keep on sucking up to the biggest con man ever to reach the White House. Howard doesn’t know when to shut up and stop damaging this country. He no doubt reasons that if he and GWB can get away Scot free with mass murder, a single Aussie hero ought to be afforded the same largesse. In the eyes of the Higher Power, this soldier is less culpable than the criminals who sent him to war.
How many of Ben’s fellow soldiers blew the whistle? & why is ADF military lawyer David McBride in jail ? Not making a judgment here, just seeking truth.
All these right wing idiots in support of BR-S use the excuse that ‘mistakes’ are inevitable in the heat and confusion of deadly battle. Well, they probably are, but the problem with this argument is that there is a world of difference between such battle conditions and the calmly considered and cold-blooded execution of an old, unarmed man for the amusement of BR-S and so that an SAS newcomer can be ‘blooded’ – all taking place in relative safety. It would be good if the MSM would point this out every time they give space to these idiots but, yes, I expect far too much.
It is hard to read the McBride case without asking some uncomfortable questions about how accountability actually works in this country.
David McBride says he tried – repeatedly – to raise serious concerns through official Defence channels before anything was ever made public. If that is accurate, then the first instinct of the system appears not to have been investigation and transparency, but containment.
Those concerns did not disappear.
They later surfaced publicly through the Afghan Files reporting, and were ultimately followed by the Brereton Inquiry, which found credible evidence of serious wrongdoing within elements of Australia’s Special Forces in Afghanistan.
Against that backdrop, it is impossible not to notice the contrast with the long-running proceedings involving Ben Roberts-Smith. Regardless of the outcome of those criminal proceedings, even the civil findings and allegations have already raised profound questions about conduct in war and accountability afterward.
This is where the public frustration grows.
A whistleblower who claims he tried to use internal systems is imprisoned for disclosing classified material, while the system he tried to alert only acted years later – after leaks, media exposure, and a formal inquiry forced the issue into the open.
You don’t have to excuse breaches of secrecy law to still ask a harder question:
If internal reporting channels are not trusted or effective in practice, what exactly is the moral pathway for exposing serious wrongdoing?
And the longer it is avoided, the more it begins to look like a system afraid of its own answers.
It is very disappointing to see these stupid psyops being promoted as real by people who know better. It only confirms to me that those doing so are false themselves and part of the problem not the solution.
So sick of the idiots defending BRS. We’re not talking about the heat of battle or coming round a blind corner in active combat – we’re talking about the execution of known non-armed civilians and these “yehaw it’s a war bro” armchair commandos would be wailing and demanding justice (or more like summary incarceration/death without trial) for the murder of their loved ones no matter what.
The fact that Ben the murderer is walking around is a stain on the reputation and honor of every professional soldier that has discharged their duty lawfully.
I read this story with dismay. I wish it were not true.