Ben Roberts-Smith

A defence witness who allegedly killed an Afghan man during a 2012 mission after receiving orders from Ben Roberts-Smith attempts to avoid testifying at the ...

Last year, Mr Roberts-Smith was asked in the witness box whether he ordered Person 66 to kill a prisoner and he replied: "I did not." Mr Tracey argued there was a "heightened risk" of future charges due to investigations by Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Special Investigator. Barrister Jack Tracey, representing Person 66, said the expected evidence was "of a nature that if it were given, would involve self-incrimination of the gravest kind". Person 66 initially objected to answering a question about the number of missions he took part in when Mr Roberts-Smith was a patrol commander, citing potential self-incrimination. After the incident, Mr Roberts-Smith allegedly said he had "blooded" Person 66, a phrase referring to junior operators getting their first kill in action. Mr Roberts-Smith allegedly directed Person 66 to shoot an Afghan man who was, at the time, a PUC (person under control), and he allegedly "did so".

Three newspapers being sued for defamation by war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith say the evidence of a former soldier dubbed Person 66 may be a key to winning ...

A killing in those circumstances is murder. The newspapers are seeking to rely on a defence of truth. The newspapers have alleged Mr Roberts-Smith directed Person 66 to kill an Afghan prisoner in 2012 as an exercise in “blooding” or initiating a soldier by getting them a “kill”. Under the rules of engagement, persons under the control of Australian troops cannot be killed.

The Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial could hang on the evidence of one SAS soldier - but his lawyer has told a court the evidence carries risks he could ...

But Mr Tracey warned about the impact of giving evidence on the soldier. “At the end of the day, the balance of the interest of justice lies with my client not being required to give the evidence,” Mr Tracey said. “The particular evidence is of a nature that, if it were given, it would involve self incrimination of the gravest kind,” Mr Tracey said. Nine hopes to convince the court that Mr Roberts-Smith is a war criminal based on the evidence of other SAS witnesses who claim he killed unarmed Afghans during other SAS raids. Nine claims Mr Roberts-Smith forced an Afghan detainee to kneel in a field outside the village and ordered Person 66 to execute the unarmed man so the junior soldier could be “blooded” with a kill. The Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial could hang on the evidence of one SAS soldier - but his lawyer has told a court the evidence carries risks he could be prosecuted.

A key soldier witness called in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial won't be compelled to testify about allegedly being directed to shoot an Afghan ...

A barrister for Person 66 yesterday argued his client's evidence would involve "self-incrimination of the gravest kind" and potentially expose him to the risk of charges in the future, while also affecting his wellbeing. Person 66 objected to answering questions about missions with Mr Roberts-Smith on the grounds of potential self-incrimination, even under the protection of a certificate which would mean his evidence could not be used against him in an Australian court. - On Wednesday, Justice Anthony Besanko ruled it was not in the interest of justice to compel him to testify

A former elite soldier will not be required to give evidence in Ben Roberts-Smith's defamation case about an alleged shooting of an Afghan prisoner in 2012.

The newspapers are seeking to rely on a defence of truth and subpoenaed Person 66 to give evidence as part of their case. Asked about the nature of the offence, Mr Tracey said it “would be an offence of murder”. A killing in those circumstances is murder. He will deliver a written judgment at a later date. But Person 66 objected to giving the evidence even with that certificate, and Mr Tracey said on Tuesday the disadvantage to his client if he were forced to give the evidence “would be very substantial ... notwithstanding the existence of a certificate”. Barrister Jack Tracey, acting for Person 66, told the court on Monday there were reasonable grounds for his client objecting to giving evidence because the testimony the witness was anticipated to give “would have the tendency to incriminate” him in the commission of an alleged offence.

Nine newspapers have lost one key “path to victory” against Ben Roberts-Smith's lawsuit after a court refused to compel an SAS soldier to testify about an ...

“On a mission in October 2012… But Justice Anthony Besanko, after a day of deliberations, ruled it would not be in the interest of justice to force Person 66 to answer the questions about Syahchow. The newspapers called Person 66 to testify about a mission in the Afghan region of Syahchow where he was deployed under the command of Mr Roberts-Smith in 2012. Nine claims Mr Roberts-Smith forced Person 66 to shoot a PUC in a field at Syachow so the SAS soldier could be “blooded”. Nine newspapers have lost one key “path to victory” against Ben Roberts-Smith‘s lawsuit after a court refused to compel an SAS soldier to testify about an alleged war crime murder. Nine has lost a major battle in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial after the court made a significant ruling on a key witness.