The arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated soldier, has sent a shockwave through the nation, exposing a profound rift in how the country views its military legacy and the limits of heroism. Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross for his actions during the battle of Tizak in Afghanistan, is now held on remand at Sydney’s Silverwater prison, facing five counts of “war crime – murder.”
The charges relate to the deaths of five Afghan men between April 2009 and October 2012. While Roberts-Smith has consistently denied the allegations, the legal tide has turned against him. In 2023, a civil court ruled on the “balance of probabilities” that he had committed war crimes during a defamation suit he initiated against two investigative journalists. Now, the matter has moved from the civil sphere to the criminal justice system.
For many, the arrest of national war hero Ben Roberts-Smith is not merely a legal proceeding but a confrontation with the “Anzac tradition”—the foundational myth of bravery and mateship that defines the Australian psyche. The fallout has split the country along cultural and political lines, pitting the absolute rule of law against a perceived need to protect those who fight in the “hardship of war.”
A Nation Divided by the ‘Anzac Religion’
The intensity of the reaction to the charges stems from what the late historian Ken Inglis described as a “civil religion”—the Anzac legend. Formed from the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps in 1914, the tradition has evolved into a shorthand for national identity, often centering on the exploits of young men in foreign conflicts.
Professor Marilyn Lake, a historian at the University of Melbourne, notes that challenging this mythology can be perceived as an act of betrayal. Lake, who co-authored the 2010 book What’s Wrong with Anzac?, recalls being accused of being a traitor for questioning the narrative. She suggests that while some of the “worship” of Anzac may have dimmed, the tradition remains a powerful touchstone for those identifying with “old Australia” in an increasingly polarized political climate.
This emotional investment is evident in the reactions of Australia’s most powerful figures. Gina Rinehart, the nation’s wealthiest person, stated she “didn’t understand” the rationale behind the charges and called for “compassion and the Aussie spirit” to be extended to Roberts-Smith. Similarly, Senator Pauline Hanson of the One Nation party declared she would not “abandon” the former soldier, remaining steadfast in her support.
Even former prime ministers have struggled to balance the prestige of the Victoria Cross with the gravity of the murder charges. Tony Abbott expressed “instinctive sympathy” for special forces soldiers, arguing that We see “wrong to judge the actions of men in mortal combat by the standards of ordinary civilian life.” John Howard, while noting that the arrest would “tug at the heartstrings,” emphasized that the rule of law remains a core Australian value.
The Legal and Moral Conflict
The case has created a friction point within the conservative wing of Australian politics. While some view the prosecution as an attack on the military, others argue that the integrity of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) depends on accountability. Andrew Hastie, a prominent Liberal and former SAS soldier who testified against Roberts-Smith in the 2023 civil trial, maintained that while the presumption of innocence applies, “none of us are above the law.”
This tension was further highlighted by conservative commentator Andrew Bolt, who challenged those defending the soldier to consider the specific nature of the allegations. Bolt questioned whether the public is “fine if our soldiers shoot prisoners in the back” or “murder a handcuffed man already injured after being thrown off a cliff.”
The most extreme reactions have come from nationalist and far-right groups. The Australian Flag Society, a Christian nationalist organization, recently shared an image on social media depicting a soldier kicking an Afghan man off a cliff, asking if such imagery was acceptable in their campaign to save Roberts-Smith. Some supporters responded by asserting that “war is war, kill or be killed.”
| Period/Date | Event | Legal Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2009–2012 | Alleged incidents in Afghanistan | Basis of current criminal charges |
| 2023 | Civil Defamation Trial | Court found war crimes occurred on balance of probabilities |
| April 2026 | Arrest by Australian Federal Police | Criminal charges for five counts of murder |
| Current | Remand at Silverwater Prison | Awaiting bail hearing and future trial |
The Psychological Impact on National Identity
According to Dr. Sebastian Svegaard of the Digital Media Research Centre at the Queensland University of Technology, the case transcends a simple legal dispute over whether a crime was committed. He suggests that for those who view Roberts-Smith as a hero, the prosecution feels like an attack on their own identity and core beliefs.
When a national symbol is dismantled, it forces a collective re-evaluation of the values that symbol represented. In this instance, the arrest of national war hero Ben Roberts-Smith forces Australia to reconcile the “Anzac spirit” with the international laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the killing of prisoners of war and non-combatants.
The case also underscores the role of investigative journalism in challenging state narratives. The 2023 civil ruling upheld the reporting of two journalists from Nine newspapers, demonstrating that the “balance of probabilities” in a civil court can pave the way for the more rigorous “beyond reasonable doubt” standard required in a criminal trial.
As the legal process unfolds, the Australian public remains divided. For some, the pursuit of justice for Afghan victims is the only acceptable path. For others, the prosecution of a Victoria Cross recipient is an affront to the soldiers who serve in the most dangerous environments on earth.
Roberts-Smith has yet to enter a plea. He is expected to face a bail hearing this month, with a full criminal trial to follow at a later date. The outcome will likely serve as a definitive statement on whether the Anzac tradition can coexist with a strict adherence to the rule of law in the 21st century.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on the intersection of military tradition and legal accountability in the comments below.
