Australia’s most decorated living soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, finds himself at the center of a legal and moral reckoning that has gripped the nation and drawn international attention. On April 7, 2026, Roberts-Smith was arrested by Australian Federal Police at Sydney airport after a flight from Brisbane, charged with five counts of the war crime of murder allegedly committed during his service in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. The arrest, following a years-long investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI), marks only the second time an Australian has faced such charges—and certainly the most high-profile.
Roberts-Smith’s arrest is the latest development in a saga that has unfolded over nearly a decade, involving not only criminal allegations but also a headline-grabbing defamation trial and a broader inquiry into the conduct of Australian special forces in Afghanistan. According to AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett, it will be alleged that the victims “were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan.” Barrett further stated, “It will be alleged the victims were shot by the accused or shot by subordinates acting on his orders and in his presence.” The charges carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The journey to this point has been complicated and fraught with challenges. The allegations against Roberts-Smith first came to widespread public attention in 2018, when Australian journalists Nick McKenzie, Chris Masters, and David Wroe published reports alleging he had murdered unarmed Afghani personnel. Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient and national hero at the time, denied any wrongdoing and sued the journalists and Fairfax Media for defamation. The civil trial, which unfolded over several years and was dubbed by some as “Australia’s trial of the century,” became the first time any court had examined claims of war crimes by Australian forces.
In 2023, Federal Court judge Anthony Besanko ruled that, on the balance of probabilities, Roberts-Smith had murdered two Afghani personnel and either ordered or pressured a subordinate to murder another. The judge found that Roberts-Smith had twice ordered unarmed men be shot to “blood” rookie soldiers and was involved in the deaths of a handcuffed farmer and a captured Taliban fighter. The latter’s prosthetic leg was reportedly taken as a trophy and later used by troops as a drinking vessel. Roberts-Smith lost his appeal against the Federal Court finding in May 2025. However, the civil trial’s standard of proof was lower than that required in a criminal court, where prosecutors must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The criminal charges Roberts-Smith now faces stem from a broader investigation into alleged war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. In 2016, the Australian military began probing such allegations, culminating in the 2020 release of the Brereton Report. The report outlined credible evidence that elite Australian soldiers unlawfully killed 39 civilians and prisoners, and recommended investigations into 19 current or former Australian Defence Force members. In response, the Australian government established the Office of the Special Investigator to pursue these cases. To date, only two Australians—Roberts-Smith and Oliver Schulz—have been charged. Schulz, who was arrested in 2023 for the alleged killing of an Afghani civilian, has pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial in 2027.
The investigation and prosecution of alleged war crimes have been hampered by significant obstacles. Ross Barnett, director of investigations at OSI, described the process as a “significant step” under “challenging circumstances,” noting, “We can’t go to that country, we don’t have access to the crime scenes... We don’t have photographs, site plans, measurements, the recovery of projectiles, blood spatter analysis... We don’t have access to the deceased.” The political situation in Afghanistan has made on-the-ground investigation nearly impossible, further complicating efforts to gather evidence.
Roberts-Smith’s prominence as a decorated soldier and public figure has also influenced the pace and caution of the investigation. As the public face of the Australian military for years, his prosecution is both a test of the country’s commitment to international law and a source of national soul-searching. Many Australians celebrate the service of military personnel and expect the utmost care in bringing charges for acts committed during war. As legal experts have observed, a failed prosecution could undermine public trust in the entire investigative process.
Australia’s obligations under international law have played a central role in driving the investigation forward. Since joining the International Criminal Court in 2002, Australia is legally bound to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute alleged war crimes domestically. If Australian authorities failed to act, the International Criminal Court would have the power to intervene. In this case, the work of the AFP and OSI ensures that Roberts-Smith will face trial in Australia rather than overseas. Given the gravity of the charges, he will likely be tried in a state supreme court, following a standard criminal trial procedure.
The arrest has been described as a “significant and long-awaited step for victims and affected communities” in Afghanistan, according to Rawan Arraf, executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice. “The proper investigation and prosecution of alleged war crimes by members of the Australian special forces in Afghanistan are essential to ensuring justice for Afghan victims and to Australia meeting its obligations under international law,” Arraf said in a statement.
Reactions within Australia have been mixed, reflecting the complexity and divisiveness of the case. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the arrest, emphasizing the importance of keeping politics out of ongoing court proceedings. Meanwhile, the Australian War Memorial announced it would again review its exhibit on Roberts-Smith, which has been repeatedly updated to reflect new allegations and court outcomes. The case has also reignited debate around whistleblowers, with former army lawyer David McBride—who revealed information about alleged Australian war crimes—remaining imprisoned, and Senator David Shoebridge publicly calling for his release following the arrest.
The significance of Roberts-Smith’s arrest extends beyond the individual, touching on Australia’s reputation on the global stage and the evolving standards of accountability in wartime conduct. As conflicts around the world test the limits of international law, Australia’s willingness to prosecute its own most celebrated soldier stands as a striking, if controversial, affirmation of legal and ethical norms—at a time when some allies have shown a growing disregard for such standards.
For now, Roberts-Smith awaits his next court appearance, as the nation—and the world—watches closely to see how justice will be served in one of the most consequential cases in Australian military and legal history.