Decorated Australian war hero Ben Roberts-Smith told a soldier if his performance did not improve he would “get a bullet in the back of the head”, a court has been told.
The ex-SAS soldier, who can only be referred to as Person 1 for legal reasons, made the claims at Mr Robert-Smith’s defamation trial, which continued in the Federal Court on Thursday.
A distinguished Victoria Cross recipient, Mr Roberts-Smith, 43, is suing Nine and its journalists over reports that he claims were defamatory because they alleged he committed war crimes and murders in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2012.
When questioned by Nine’s barrister Nicholas Owens SC, Person 1 said Mr Roberts-Smith was among a group of soldiers who subjected him to poor treatment.
“Members of the team would make disparaging remarks to me about my lack of experience,” Person 1 told the court.
“There certainly was a negative attitude towards me … I was from a reserve background and the rest of the members were from an army background with significantly more experience than me.”
When Person 1 and Mr Roberts-Smith were undertaking training at Lancelin, north of Perth, before being deployed to Afghanistan, the court was told of multiple alleged slapping incidents.
“I was driving … on a regular basis, as we would drive over the rocky off-road terrain. If I hit something, a rather large bump, the applicant (Mr Roberts-Smith) would reach down and slap me across the back of the head,” Person 1 said.
“The applicant said to me that he didn’t think I had the required skills or ability to deploy to Afghanistan with the task group.
“He also said that he was gonna (sic) do everything he could within his power to have me removed from the team and to get one of his colleagues to replace me.”
Mr Roberts-Smith’s barrister, Bruce McClintock SC, objected to numerous questions Mr Owens put to Person 1, claiming they were not previously put to Mr Roberts-Smith when he was in the witness box last year.
Despite the objections, Justice Anthony Besanko allowed most of the questions to be asked.
Person 1 recalled an incident while serving alongside Mr Roberts-Smith in Afghanistan’s Chora Valley in 2006.
Person 1 said while manning an observation post involving secret surveillance, a man aged about 15 to 20 was spotted coming out from behind nearby rocks.
“He was a male, he had facial hair and he was wearing the traditional Afghan dress,” Person 1 said.
“He was just walking. I observed he had a satchel bag … I didn’t observe it the first time he walked across, I only observed it the second time.”
Person 1 said the Afghani man did not appear to have a weapon and because an observation post (OP) was being manned, “the idea was to not compromise yourself” by engaging in unnecessary conflict that could expose the OP.
Afterwards, the court was told that Sergeant Matthew Locke, who was second in command of the mission and died while serving in 2007, and Mr Roberts-Smith “engaged” the individual.
“I heard the shots from their engagement,” Person 1 said.
“He (Sergeant Locke) mentioned that when they engaged the individual he had some sort of device on him … they didn’t know whether it was a flair or smoke.”
No smoke or flair was observed by Person 1, the court was told.
Person 1 said he believed by “engaging” the OP had been “compromised” and his team began to be the targets of enemy fire.
While Mr Roberts-Smith was shooting at enemies, Person 1 said the rounds were “splashing” off rocks about 10-15 metres away from where Person 1 and Person 2 were located.
“As he fired, I could see the splash of where his rounds were and every time I saw the splash it felt like someone was throwing sand in my face,” Person 1 said.
“He fired about four to five rounds before I realised what was happening. I turned to him and said ‘stop firing’ … to which he responded with ‘shut the f**k up c**t’.”
During the battle, which only ended when aircraft support came in, Person 1 said his machine gun stopped working multiple times because it was not properly lubricated.
“I didn’t take oil with me on the mission and I needed to keep oiling it,” Person 1 said, acknowledging their performance was not up to standard on that mission.
In the months after the battle, the court was told that Person 1 received numerous reviews that showed a deterioration in performance, mistakes made, an official warning and concerns about suitability to serve that Person 1 agreed were legitimate.
“I did lack confidence then … due to the behaviour I was being subjected to,” Person 1 said.
“The applicant (Mr Roberts-Smith) would exaggerate my mistakes and he would spread rumours about me.
“The relationship between myself and the applicant got worse, we couldn’t really be in the same room together. I was in the room one day, we used to share a team room, we called them B huts … the applicant came into the room aggressively. He said words to the effect of ‘if your performance doesn’t improve on the next patrol you’re gonna get a bullet in the back of the head’.”
Person 1 said that exchange “made me fearful for my own personal safety”.
“It made me lose more confidence, it made me perform worse,” Person 1 said.
After being transferred, Person 1’s performance improved dramatically.
The court was told that Mr Roberts-Smith reacted with hostility when he discovered Person 1 made a complaint about him.
“The applicant approached me, stood right up close to me … looked down on me and said ‘if you’re gonna make accusations c**t you better have some f***ing proof’,” Person 1 said.
“He’d spit on the ground in front of me
“He’d hold the door for me and let it slam in my face.”
Person 1 said Mr Roberts-Smith never offered any help to deal with the performance issues.
“Person 7 told me that the applicant had told him that I was an incompetent soldier, I was a coward and that I didn’t deserve to be in the regiment,” Person 1 said.
Several years later at a meeting among senior officials, Person 1 told the court that Mr Roberts-Smith allegedly continued his criticisms.
“Person 43 and Person 44 made me aware … they said to me that the applicant was making disparaging remarks about xjmtzywme at a manning meeting and that I didn’t deserve to be put in a 2IC (second in command) slot,” Person 1 said.
The trial continues.
