News location:

Thursday, September 17, 2026 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

National embarrassment: take those medals back now

Ben Roberts-Smith … was awarded two military medals, the Victoria Cross and Medal for Gallantry for his service in Afghanistan. Photo: Theron Kirkman/AAP

“It has been reported that the failure to convict Roberts-Smith of criminal offences means that he cannot be stripped of the medals. This is nonsense,” writes legal columnist HUGH SELBY

Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded two military medals, the Victoria Cross and Medal for Gallantry for his service in Afghanistan.

Hugh Selby.

According to the Special Air Service Historical Foundation, the Victoria Cross is awarded for the most conspicuous gallantry, or a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the face of the enemy. 

The Medal for Gallantry is awarded for acts of gallantry in action in hazardous circumstances. 

“Gallantry” is a component of both awards. “Gallantry” refers to courageous conduct, bravery and noble-minded behaviour.

Roberts-Smith was a living war hero, but he had feet of clay.

In 2023 Roberts-Smith was found by Justice Besanko in the Federal Court to have carried out unlawful killings in Afghanistan.

In May 2025 his appeal was dismissed by three judges. Their judgment shows that the following, among other acts, were established (on the balance of probabilities, which is lower than the criminal trial standard of beyond reasonable doubt):

  • He murdered an unarmed and defenceless Afghan civilian, by kicking him off a cliff and procuring the soldiers under his command to shoot that man.
  • He committed murder by pressuring a newly deployed and inexperienced soldier to execute an elderly, unarmed Afghan in order to “blood the rookie”.
  • He committed murder by machine gunning a man with a prosthetic leg.
  • He authorised the execution of an unarmed Afghan by a junior trooper. 
  • He broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement.
  • He disgraced his country and our Army by his conduct.

In September, the High Court declined to hear his appeal from that outcome because it had “insufficient prospects of success”.

But he still has his medals. Why?

How to revoke the unearned honours

The process for cancellation of a military honour is: “A Defence honour or award may only be cancelled by the Governor-General… the Chief of the Defence Force may request that the Minister for Defence make a recommendation to the Governor-General to cancel an honour or award. 

“Before requesting that the Minister make a recommendation to the Governor-General, Defence must determine that a member or former member of the Australian Defence Force is no longer eligible for, or should no longer be entitled to be recognised by, the honour or award. 

“The Minister will review the recommendation and if he agrees, will refer it to the Governor-General.” 

None of that has been reported.

Meanwhile, the Australian War Memorial (AWM) continues to display his valour

That it does so is a matter of national embarrassment.

The purpose of our AWM, as stated on its website, “is to commemorate the sacrifice of those Australians who have died in war or on operational service and those who have served our nation in times of conflict. Its mission is leading remembrance and understanding of Australia’s wartime experience.” 

The Australian War Memorial Act, 1980 does not require the AWM exhibits to be accurate. The closest it gets is section 5.2: “The Memorial shall use every endeavour to make the most advantageous use of the memorial collection in the national interest.”

There is no guidance as to what to do with any matter of individual or collective disgrace.

Meanwhile, busloads of school kids visit the AWM. They are not going to read the recent changes to the notes to the exhibit. Is he the kind of soldier we want them to emulate, one who has disgraced his country and our army?

There is, it seems, no will on the part of the Army, the Defence Department, the minister or the AWM to get on with the job.

They have had two years, since Justice Besanko’s decision, to prepare.

It has been reported that the failure to convict Roberts-Smith of criminal offences means that he cannot be stripped of the medals. This is nonsense. 

Had those responsible for approving his awards known of his murderous conduct he would never have got them. End of story.

The solution is hiding in plain sight. What is needed is a short act of parliament. It should start with a statement that our medals of honour are awarded for acts of heroism, valour and gallantry, free of the taint of any ignoble conduct.

It should state:

  • That the award of medals reflects not only the achievement of the recipient but also the collective spirit of every Australian’s admiration for selfless heroism.
  • That the reputations and memory of all those rightly awarded a medal of valour should not be tarnished by an award bestowed upon an undeserving recipient.
  • And the Australian courts have found on the balance of probabilities that the recipient Ben Roberts-Smith acted contrary to the conduct expected and required of any recipient of a medal of valour.

In light of all those matters the parliament revokes the military honours (as listed in the schedule to the act) from the recipient Ben Roberts-Smith.

God forbid that Hamas, Netanyahu, Putin or Trump should be able to say that we, too, condone the murder of innocents.

Former barrister Hugh Selby is a CityNews columnist, principally focused on legal affairs. 

‘I have shame, a lot of it. Shame it took so long to uncover the truth’

 

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Hugh Selby

Hugh Selby

Share this

11 Responses to National embarrassment: take those medals back now

cbrapsycho says: 3 October 2025 at 6:55 am

People should be able to keep awards for the good things they’ve done, assuming there was no untoward conduct involved. If in other action they do things that are wrong, that discredit needs to be equally apparent, so there is a balanced view of the person in terms of their good characteristics AND their bad behaviour.

People are complex, not all bad, nor all good. It is appropriate to recognise all aspects of the person and their behaviour rather than simplifying it. We shouldn’t dismiss either the good, or the bad, as we then create a myth rather than representing reality. However, this is a task not many can manage as it requires considerable objectivity and intellectual effort. I’m not sure that the Army, the War Memorial or the advocates of Ben Roberts-Smith have either the skills or the will to do that.

Reply
David says: 3 October 2025 at 11:42 am

Sadly Hugh your argument kind of got lost with the line “on the balance of probabilities, which is lower than the criminal trial standard of beyond reasonable doubt”. Our legal system ain’t doing too well on this front and the first things that springs to mind is “well who had it in for BRS and knew that with enough hearsay they could convince people he did something bad”. Was it $3M payouts all around ? Me thinks we’ll never know the truth.

Reply
Amy says: 6 October 2025 at 12:28 am

I visited the The Australian War Memorial today and was shocked to see that his uniform is still on display with only a very weak note attached as an amendment. They may not be able to strip him of his medals, but surely it’s easy enough to take a uniform out of a case. I was really disappointed and hours later still am.

Reply
Alan Foyle says: 31 October 2025 at 3:19 pm

Amy, so we forget every other of BR-S acts of bravery and throw his uniform in the bin because you and others are “shocked”? Would love to see how the likes of people like you would handle the exact same circumstances.

Reply
Richard says: 7 November 2025 at 11:29 pm

Well said, Alan. The man can not defend himself until there is a criminal trial, evidence is given under oath, and the defence can cross-examine the witness. Not forgetting that his acts of courage and valour still stand, this man put his life on the line for this country.

Reply
BigG says: 7 April 2026 at 9:20 pm

Hugh Selby,
How about you go ask him for his medals?
Ben Roberts Smith has more honour and integrity than you will ever have.
Those so called soldiers who gave Ben up are the reason this country has gone to crap.

Reply
Katrina says: 8 April 2026 at 1:38 pm

Shame on YOU Hugh Selby. You along with so many in the ‘media’ are causing so much harm towards all the people of this country, you all make me sick.

Reply
Hugh Selby says: 8 April 2026 at 6:05 pm

Respectfully I’d like the two recent comment writers (BigB and Katrina) to pause a moment and reflect on the following points:

1. In this country we reward bravery when we can, and a few are brave enough to call out cowardice and bad acts. For recent bravery I remind you of the former Syrian who risked his life, and got shot, to stop one of the two Bondi crazies before Christmas.

For paying the price for being brave enough to call out the bad I remind you of Witness K, the intelligence operative who blew the whistle on our disgusting conduct in Timor Leste. Our Government prosecuted him. A probity award would be more fitting. They should pardon him for setting an example that we’d like right thinking people to follow. But both the Morrison Government and the Albanese Government have failed us.

What happened to Witness K serves as a good reason for people who witness bad acts by defence colleagues or public service colleagues to keep quiet. Speak up and you are punished.

For that reason I admire those who spoke up about Roberts-Smith. They took a risk. They showed courage. I thank them.

2. When we reward bravery, be it by our defence personnel, or emergency services, or those who risked their lives to treat Covid, or those who on the spur of the moment risk their life, we don’t want those awards to be tarnished by an undeserving person getting the award. Such tarnishing pushes down the value of the award for all those who earned it.

3. Like most people I was admiring of Roberts-Smith and proud as an Australian when he was awarded those medals of valour. I had no idea that there are two sides to his character, one is courage, the other is not.

4. Again like many people I was surprised, then alarmed, then shocked and finally sickened as the evidence came out when Roberts-Smith sued media. Their defence was, ‘what we printed was true’. They succeeded in that defence, with a very experienced, highly reputable judge, finding that on the balance of probabilities Roberts-Smith had a role in the unlawful killing of civilians.

5. The evidence that showed that Roberts-Smith was not the person we hoped and thought he was came from many witnesses, not just one or two. It was the evidence of those witnesses that exposed how we had all been misled.

6. Following that court decision I, and others, hoped that he would ‘do the right thing’ and in the interests of all other living and dead recipients of those medals, that he would return them. Had he done so there would be at least that reason to respect him. He still has those medals.

7. We Australians admire courage, valour, heroism. Long may that continue. But we also abide by our laws and expect everyone else to do so. Those defence force witnesses who spoke up about Roberts-Smith had experienced similar training and similar operational conditions. But they didn’t do what he is alleged to have done.

I recognise that coming forward and telling the truth was a very big ask. But they did their duty. I admire them. I respect their service. I hope that you will too.

Reply
alby absent says: 9 April 2026 at 5:41 pm

No comment on the obscenity of the Australian Government spending allegedly $300,000,000 pursuing this man, who, like his fellow men at arms, put his life on the line for the foreign policy of the Government in a non-winnable action that was doomed from the start. The British last century (1919) and this century, the Russians (1979 – 1989) and of course you can’t leave out the Septic Tanks, all unable to subdue the Taliban and pulling out their forces when it was no longer politically expedient.

Reply
Gary says: 25 April 2026 at 12:18 pm

VC was awarded for an act. That act is a fact. No way in hell should that be revoked unless the act was false.
Sure, look into punishment if war crimes are proven in a criminal court. Better use of all this money and time dealing with this event is an enquiry where the men are open and honest in what happened. Find an answer to not having it repeat again.

Reply
Michael Mitchell says: 9 April 2026 at 7:02 am

Canberra CityNews should be forced to give its license back, just in case it’s guilty – no need to wait for a trial.
Or we could wait until the legal process has fully run its course. Ben Roberts-Smith remains innocent unless found guilty.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

Related Posts

Opinion

KEEPING UP THE ACT

There's an art to breaking election promises. KEEPING UP THE ACT thinks Minister Chris Steel has all the moves.

Opinion

Sex claims: what’s the need to name schools?

"Even given the worst possible outcomes for the accused, what possible significance could their schools be in investigations to allegations of events in a suburban alley and a private home," asks former school principal NOEL BEDDOE.

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews