Victoria Cross Recipient Ben Roberts‑Smith Arrested, Expected to Face War‑Crime Charges

The arrest came not on a battlefield but at an airport gate.

On Tuesday, Australian Federal Police officers detained former Special Air Service corporal Ben Roberts‑Smith at Sydney Airport in a joint operation with the Office of the Special Investigator. The 47‑year‑old, long promoted as the country’s most decorated living soldier, is expected to be charged with five counts of “war crime — murder” under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, arising from incidents in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan, between 2009 and 2012.

If prosecutors proceed, it would be one of the most significant criminal cases ever brought against an Australian servicemember and a major test of how Australia enforces international humanitarian law against its own forces.

Allegations and charges

Police and prosecutors say the charges allege the deaths occurred in circumstances that constitute war crimes. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett said investigators allege the victims were not taking part in hostilities when they were killed and that some were detained, unarmed and under the control of Australian Defence Force (ADF) members.

“It will be alleged the man was a member of the ADF when he was involved in the death of Afghan nationals between 2009 and 2012 in circumstances that constitute war crimes under the Commonwealth Criminal Code,” Barrett said. “It will be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan. It will be alleged the victims were detained, unarmed and were under the control of ADF members when they were killed.”

Material outlined by authorities and reported by media links the expected charge sheet to five alleged killings or roles in killings in three Uruzgan locations:

• A murder alleged on or about April 12, 2009, at Kakarak.
• A second count alleging murder by aiding, abetting or procuring arising from the same date and place.
• A murder by aiding, abetting or procuring on or about Sept. 11, 2012, at Darwan.
• A murder with another person on or about Oct. 20, 2012, at Syahchow (also rendered Syawchow).
• A fifth count alleging murder by aiding, abetting or procuring, also on or about Oct. 20, 2012, at Syahchow.

Reports have linked those incidents to named Afghan victims and to episodes that emerged in earlier civil litigation and inquiries, including the 2012 death of a man known as Ali Jan. The criminal case will set out the formal allegations when it reaches court. Roberts‑Smith, like any accused person, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Investigations and legal context

The probe into alleged wrongdoing by Australian special forces has been years in the making. It traces in part to the Inspector‑General of the Australian Defence Force’s inquiry into Afghanistan — the Brereton report — published in redacted form in November 2020. That inquiry found "credible information" that Australian personnel were involved in the unlawful killing of 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners across 23 incidents between 2005 and 2016.

In response, the federal government established the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) on Jan. 4, 2021, to work with the AFP to build criminal briefs from Brereton referrals and related allegations. The OSI’s mandate covers suspected war crimes by ADF members in Afghanistan over an 11‑year period, with prosecutions to be considered by the independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Roberts‑Smith matter is not the first to move from inquiry to criminal charge. In March 2023, former SAS soldier Oliver Schulz was arrested and charged with the war crime of murder in relation to an alleged killing in Afghanistan — widely reported as the first time an Australian servicemember faced a war‑crimes charge under domestic law.

OSI investigators have warned of the investigative challenges: Afghan battlefields are not typical crime scenes, with little or no access to physical forensic material. OSI Director of Investigations Ross Barnett said investigators must often rely on witness testimony, contemporaneous records and material gathered during earlier inquiries.

Civil litigation and public reaction

Roberts‑Smith’s conduct had been the subject of civil litigation in Australia. In 2018 he sued The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times for defamation over articles alleging unlawful killings and other misconduct. On June 1, 2023, Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed the defamation claim, finding on the civil standard of proof that several of the most serious allegations were substantially true. The Full Court of the Federal Court upheld that decision in May 2025, and the High Court refused special leave to appeal in September 2025, leaving the civil findings intact.

Those rulings were not criminal convictions — the criminal standard of proof is higher — but they have formed part of the public record and the backdrop to the OSI and AFP investigations. Before the allegations, Roberts‑Smith had been celebrated as a national hero: born in 1978, he served multiple tours with the Special Air Service Regiment, received the Medal for Gallantry in 2006 and the Victoria Cross for Australia in 2011, and later held senior corporate roles and public appearances.

The contrast between that image and the allegations has intensified scrutiny of ADF culture, oversight and accountability. Since the Brereton report, opinion within the military and veterans communities has been sharply divided: some argue prosecutions are essential to uphold the laws of war and restore public trust; others warn that soldiers can be unfairly singled out for decisions made in chaotic combat conditions.

Political response and next steps

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the specifics at a Canberra press conference, saying: “I have no intention of commenting on a matter that's clearly before the courts.”

Roberts‑Smith is expected to appear for a first mention of the charges in a New South Wales local court. If prosecutors proceed, any trial is likely to be complex and lengthy, potentially involving classified material, witnesses from a former war zone and difficult legal questions about how international humanitarian law applies to Australian forces in Afghanistan.

The case will test not only legal standards but how Australia reconciles its military history and national narrative with allegations of grave wrongdoing. Whatever the outcome, the proceedings will prompt renewed debate about accountability, oversight and the costs of conflict when a soldier once held up as a symbol of courage stands accused of some of the gravest crimes in the statute book.