Afghan war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith has been spotted drinking a beer with his fellow veterans during an Anzac Day service.
The Victoria Cross recipient was in good spirits as he shared a beer with an elderly veteran after a service in Brisbane’s Toowong.
The 44-year-old, who wore a string of war medals on his front, was joined by his partner Sarah Matulin and two daughters on duty.
Afghan war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith (far right) has been spotted drinking a beer with his fellow veterans after an Anzac Day morning service in Brisbane’s Toowong
The Victoria Cross recipient looked jovial as he shared a beer with an elderly veteran after paying his respects at a service in Toowong, a Brisbane suburb.
Ms. Matulin wore a smart black blazer and high-slit skirt to the ceremony where she was pictured smiling from ear to ear as she held her partner’s hand
Ms. Matulin wore a smart black blazer and a high-slit skirt to the ceremony, smiling from ear to ear as she held her partner’s hand.
Mr Roberts-Smith won the Victoria Cross for storming an enemy machine-gun stronghold in Afghanistan and killing three insurgents when his unit was pinned down.
He is still awaiting the outcome of his epic “trial of the century” defamation against two newspaper publishers over war crimes charges.
Australia’s most decorated soldier appeared relaxed drinking beer from a plastic cup despite waiting for a verdict from the 100-day trial.
Mr Roberts-Smith launched his libel action against the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Canberra Times newspapers for publishing allegations that he had committed war crimes.
The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are published by Nine Network-owned Fairfax Media, while the Canberra Times is published by Australian Community Media.
The 44-year-old, who wore a series of war medals on his front, was supported by his partner Sarah Matulin and two service daughters
Mr Roberts-Smith won the Victoria Cross for storming a strong enemy machine gun position in Afghanistan and killing three insurgents when his unit was pinned down
The sensational case, which lasted months in court, was completed at the end of July.
On Monday, his lawyers petitioned the Administrative Appeal Tribunal to reveal diary entries allegedly showing three meetings in 2017 between Major General Paul Brereton and journalist Chris Masters.
Mr Robert-Smith’s lawyer, Arthur Moses SC, argued that the submissions would show that Mr Masters, one of the persons named in the defamation trial, was allegedly given ‘special access’ to classified defense documents.
“It is in the public interest to know whether there has been a meeting between the head of what is supposed to be a classified investigation and a journalist,” Moses said.
The lawyer questioned whether it was fair or appropriate for Mr Masters to allegedly be allowed to see the documents prior to the war crimes investigation.
In 2017, Mr. Masters published the book ‘No Front Line’, which chronicled the experiences of special forces soldiers who fought in Afghanistan.
Mr Roberts-Smith filed a Freedom of Information Act to inquire whether the journalist had met with Major General Brereton prior to the investigation.
The tribunal was told that a week later the Major General asked that the diary entries on the alleged meetings be kept confidential.
Mr Roberts-Smith awaits the outcome of his epic libel ‘trial of the century’ against two newspaper publishers over war crimes charges
Mr Roberts-Smith was previously married to his wife Emma. They share two daughters
Mr Roberts-Smith was told that the diary entries would not be made public because they would reveal the identity of the confidential source who had met the Major General.
His application was denied by the Department of Defense, a decision that would be upheld after further appeals during the five-year legal saga.
While Mr Moses said this direction was ‘curious’, Christine Ernst, acting for the Australian Defense Forces Inspector General, said it was ‘simply irrelevant’.
She said disclosing the confidential source’s name via FOI requests could discourage the public from participating in future investigations.
“If no guidance could be provided restricting how the identities of individuals… can be made public, it would undermine the IGADF’s ability to conduct private investigations,” she told the tribunal.