Former SAS corporal Ben Roberts-Smith did not attend the 2023 Last Post Ceremony at the Australian War Memorial, despite initial reports suggesting he would be present. His absence followed significant public and political scrutiny regarding his status as a decorated veteran who was later the subject of a high-profile civil defamation trial. The event proceeded without him, marking a quiet end to a period of intense speculation surrounding his public appearances at national commemorations.
Why the planned attendance sparked controversy
The controversy stemmed from the findings of a 2023 Federal Court ruling in a defamation case brought by Roberts-Smith against three Australian newspapers. Justice Anthony Besanko found that the newspapers had established that Roberts-Smith committed acts of unlawful killing while serving in Afghanistan. According to the Federal Court judgment, the claims of war crimes were substantially true. Following this ruling, the presence of a Victoria Cross recipient accused of such actions at a solemn national institution like the Australian War Memorial drew criticism from veteran groups and the public, who argued his attendance was inappropriate given the findings of the court.
How the Australian War Memorial managed the situation
The Australian War Memorial maintains a policy of allowing veterans to attend public ceremonies, as it is a public space dedicated to the service and sacrifice of all who served in the Australian Defence Force. However, the institution faced pressure to restrict his access. In the lead-up to the event, the War Memorial leadership stated that they would not proactively ban any veteran from attending public commemorations. Despite this stance, the logistical and security considerations surrounding his potential arrival often overshadowed the ceremonies themselves, leading to a climate of heightened tension at the site.
Public and political reactions to the veteran’s presence
The political response to the situation remained divided. While some Members of Parliament argued that the principle of the War Memorial as a place of national reflection should be upheld regardless of an individual’s legal standing, others expressed discomfort. Several parliamentarians defended the right of veterans to attend, citing the lack of a criminal conviction at the time, even while acknowledging the severity of the civil court findings. This contrast in framing—between the legal “innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court” standard and the “moral standard” expected at the War Memorial—defined the public discourse throughout the period.
Key facts regarding the legal status
- Civil vs. Criminal: The findings against Roberts-Smith were made in a civil defamation trial, where the burden of proof is “on the balance of probabilities,” rather than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard required for criminal convictions.
- Victoria Cross: As of the most recent updates, there has been no official move to strip Roberts-Smith of his Victoria Cross, an honor awarded for his actions in 2010.
- Ongoing Legal Matters: The aftermath of the defamation trial has involved significant legal costs and ongoing scrutiny regarding the Australian Defence Force’s internal handling of the allegations documented in the Brereton Report.
The absence of Roberts-Smith from the event served to temporarily de-escalate the immediate public tension, but the broader debate regarding the honor, conduct, and legacy of Australia’s special forces remains a point of national significance. The Australian War Memorial continues to balance its role as a site for all veterans with the public expectation that it upholds the moral integrity of those it honors.