In a remote Afghan village on 11 September 2012, Australian SAS forces conducted a raid that, according to eyewitness testimony, ended with the death of an unarmed farmer named Ali Jan. Mohammed Hanifa Fatih, who described Ali Jan as his step-uncle, later recounted the events in graphic detail during Ben Roberts-Smith’s high-profile defamation trial.
Hanifa told the Federal Court via video link from Kabul that he and Ali Jan were detained and handcuffed by Australian troops in the village of Darwan. He claimed a tall soldier — whom he described as “big,” with wet clothing up to his chest and sand on his uniform — repeatedly punched and kicked them during interrogation. According to Hanifa, the soldier then kicked the handcuffed Ali Jan hard in the chest, causing him to fall down a steep embankment into a dry creek bed below. Gunshots followed soon after. Hanifa said he later saw Ali Jan’s body being dragged away, with items (including what appeared to be a radio) placed near it that he insisted had not belonged to his relative.
This incident formed one of the central allegations in a landmark defamation case brought by Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living soldier and a Victoria Cross recipient, against newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and The Canberra Times. The publications had reported claims that Roberts-Smith unlawfully killed unarmed Afghans, including by kicking a handcuffed civilian off a cliff and ordering his execution.
In June 2023, Federal Court Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed Roberts-Smith’s defamation action. On the civil standard of proof — the balance of probabilities — the judge found that several allegations were substantially true, including that Roberts-Smith had murdered an unarmed and defenceless Afghan civilian in Darwan by kicking him off a cliff and procuring soldiers under his command to shoot him. The ruling also covered other incidents, such as the alleged killing of a man with a prosthetic leg. Roberts-Smith’s subsequent appeals to the Full Federal Court and the High Court were unsuccessful.
Roberts-Smith has consistently denied all allegations, maintaining that his actions during operations in Afghanistan complied with the rules of engagement and that the witnesses against him were unreliable or motivated by other factors. His legal team argued during the civil proceedings that no such cliff existed in the manner described and that Ali Jan was a legitimate target.
From Civil Findings to Criminal Charges
The defamation case drew heavily on evidence from the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force’s inquiry into alleged war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. That inquiry, and subsequent investigations by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), led to criminal action.
In a dramatic development on 7 April 2026, the 47-year-old former SAS corporal was arrested by the AFP at Sydney Airport upon arrival from Brisbane. He was charged with five counts of the war crime of murder relating to the alleged unlawful killing of unarmed Afghans between 2009 and 2012. The charges include one count of war crime murder, one of jointly commissioning such a murder, and three counts of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the offence. The alleged victims were unarmed detainees or civilians.
Roberts-Smith was taken into custody and spent his first night at Silverwater Correctional Complex in western Sydney. He made no application for bail during an initial hearing, meaning he remained behind bars at least until a scheduled bail review. His legal team has indicated he will contest all charges. He is due to appear in court again in coming weeks, with the matter expected to progress toward a full criminal trial — a process that could take years. If convicted, he faces the possibility of life imprisonment.
This marks only the second time an Australian veteran of the Afghanistan campaign has faced war crimes charges. The case has reignited intense national debate over accountability for actions in a complex and brutal conflict, the reliability of eyewitness testimony given years later and across cultures, and the challenges of applying legal standards to special forces operations against insurgent forces like the Taliban.
For the family of Ali Jan, the developments represent a long pursuit of justice. Hanifa and other relatives have previously expressed a desire to see those responsible held accountable, describing Ali Jan as a civilian farmer providing for his children rather than a combatant.
The criminal proceedings will test the evidence under the much higher standard of proof — beyond reasonable doubt — in an adversarial setting. Roberts-Smith retains significant support among some veterans and sections of the public who view him as a hero unfairly targeted after serving his country in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
War leaves deep and lasting wounds on soldiers, civilians, and their families alike. This case, spanning more than a decade from the dusty hills of Darwan to courtrooms in Australia, continues to test Australia’s commitment to the rule of law even in the fog of asymmetric warfare. The outcome of the criminal trial will carry profound implications for all involved.
About The Author
