When the battlefield enters the courtroom: The Roberts-Smith prosecution

The difficulty is not simply what is alleged, but whether a civilian court can reliably determine what occurred on a battlefield years after the event.

For legal practitioners, the development raises a broader question. How does the law meaningfully assess conduct that occurs in the fog of war?

That question is not new. The present case brings it into sharper focus.

More than a century ago, Harry “Breaker” Morant faced a British court martial for the execution of prisoners during the Boer War. His defence was that he was acting under orders in a hostile and irregular conflict. The tribunal rejected that position. He was convicted and executed.

The relevance of Morant lies not in drawing comparisons of outcome but in identifying a recurring legal tension. In both instances, the law is required to retrospectively assess conduct said to have occurred in battlefield conditions that resist clear reconstruction.

The comparison is not one of equivalence. The procedural safeguards, evidentiary standards, and legal frameworks are fundamentally different. Morant was tried in a military system that would not withstand modern scrutiny. Roberts-Smith will face a civilian criminal process with full forensic testing of the evidence and strict rules of admissibility.

VIEW ALL

What links the two is the nature of the legal problem.

Criminal law is built on assumptions of clarity. It depends on reliable evidence, defined roles, and the capacity to identify intent with precision. Battlefield conditions undermine each of those assumptions. They produce fragmented accounts, contested recollections, and environments in which the distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct may only emerge long after the event, if at all.

The Roberts-Smith prosecution will require a court to assess conduct said to have occurred in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, in circumstances that are inherently difficult to reconstruct. Witnesses are likely to include former soldiers, some of whom were present, others whose knowledge is indirect. Questions of credibility will be central. So too will be the forensic testing of operational records, communications, and any contemporaneous reporting, all of which may be incomplete or contested.

For practitioners, the case also raises difficult questions about evidentiary reliability, the weight to be given to retrospective accounts, and the limits of fact finding in highly contested environments.

There is also an institutional dimension. The involvement of the Office of the Special Investigator reflects a deliberate policy choice by the Commonwealth to pursue allegations arising out of the Afghanistan conflict through a dedicated investigative and prosecutorial framework. Allegations of this kind are no longer confined to military processes but are instead tested through the ordinary criminal justice system.

That shift is not merely procedural. It carries real consequences for how courts assess conduct in war.

A civilian court is being asked to adjudicate on conduct that occurred within a highly specialised operational environment. It must do so by applying orthodox criminal law principles to facts that may resist neat categorisation. The requirement remains proof beyond reasonable doubt, but the pathway to that conclusion is likely to be complex and heavily dependent on witness testimony and inference.

None of this displaces the central principle. Allegations of unlawful killing, if proven, demand accountability. The law cannot yield to operational difficulty. But the mechanism by which that accountability is determined is being tested in a way that few domestic criminal proceedings ever require.

The historical reference point of Morant serves only to highlight the persistence of that problem. The criticism of his trial has long focused on process and fairness. The present case, by contrast, will test whether a modern legal system can fairly and reliably determine allegations arising from similarly unstable conditions, but with the benefit of contemporary safeguards.

There is a further layer that cannot be ignored. The distinction between individual criminal liability and broader questions of command and culture is not always easily maintained in cases of this kind. While the criminal law ultimately fixes responsibility on individuals, the factual matrix in which those individuals operated may raise more systemic questions about practices, expectations, and informal norms within units. How those matters are addressed, and the extent to which they influence the assessment of individual guilt, will be a critical feature of any trial.

The Roberts-Smith matter is now more than a reputational dispute. It is a live criminal proceeding that will test how Australian courts approach allegations of war crimes committed by its own soldiers. The outcome will be significant, not only for the accused, but for how the legal system navigates the tension between operational reality and legal principle.

That tension has existed for more than a century. It remains unresolved.

Tony F Taouk is the principal at Magna Carta Lawyers.