The defamation case of the decade is over. Here are the biggest takeaways.

It's the story that will continue to make headlines across the country this week.

Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith committed a slew of war crimes in Afghanistan, including murdering unarmed prisoners, a federal court judge has found.

On Thursday afternoon, Justice Anthony Besanko found a number of 2018 reports published by The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times about war crimes committed by Roberts-Smith were substantially true.

It is a massive court loss for Roberts-Smith, ending an almost five-year legal defamation battle between the former-SAS corporal and three media outlets.

Watch: Admiral Christopher Barrie condemns war crime allegations made. Post continues below. 

So, how did it get to this? And what exactly did the articles accuse Roberts-Smith of doing when he was a soldier in Afghanistan?

Here's what we know.

Who is Ben Roberts-Smith?

Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest military honour, in 2011 for his actions in Afghanistan. He soon became the most highly decorated serving member of the Australian Defence Force.

Roberts-Smith left the full-time army in 2013, studied, and went on to be appointed as General Manager of Seven Queensland, a regional television network owned by Channel Seven.

Then in 2017 and 2018, Robert-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny. 

What did the articles in question say that Ben Roberts-Smith did?

In 2018, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times published a series of six articles relating to allegations against Roberts-Smith of war crimes. It was award-winning investigative journalists Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters who wrote the articles. 

The stories alleged he committed war crimes while serving in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.

The following allegations the article made, the federal court judge found to be substantially true, as per The Age:

• Roberts-Smith murdered an unarmed and defenceless Afghan civilian in September 2012 by kicking him off a cliff and procuring the soldiers under his command to shoot him.
• He broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement.
• He committed another murder on Easter Sunday, 2009, by pressuring a newly deployed and inexperienced SAS soldier to execute an elderly, unarmed Afghan in order to "blood the rookie".
• He committed a third murder by machine-gunning a man with a prosthetic leg on the Easter Sunday mission. He took the prosthetic leg with him and encouraged his soldiers to use it as a novelty beer-drinking vessel.

Around the time the articles were written/published, there was a long-running secret inquiry taking place into allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan.

The end result of the inquiry found credible information that at least 39 Afghans were unlawfully killed by Australian soldiers, with two others subjected to cruel treatment in 23 separate incidents, involving 25 members of the Special Operations Task Group. No specific names of the soldiers involved were divulged publicly.

Australia Defence Association director Neil James confirmed some of the allegations related to "people that previously the country has held in high regard".

Why did Ben Roberts-Smith sue?

Roberts-Smith claimed his reputation was damaged as a result of the articles published. 

Kerry Stokes, the Channel Seven chairman and then-chair of the Australian War Memorial, provided financial assistance to Ben Roberts-Smith during these legal proceedings. 

Ben Roberts-Smith attending the trial. Image: AAP.

As for the newspapers, they defended their reporting, saying it was a matter of investigative journalism on matters of public interest. The onus was then on the newspapers to prove the truth of what they had reported, as proving truth is a defence under defamation law.

The trial unpacked.

It was an arduous legal proceeding, with the trial taking many weeks, and there were numerous interruptions due to COVID-19.

As per The Sydney Morning Herald, there were 110 days of evidence, 41 witnesses, 6186 pages of transcript, 267 tender items, 125 subpoenas issued, 63 notices to produce and 36 interim judgments. Most of the witnesses for and against Roberts-Smith were former SAS soldiers. All were given pseudonyms to protect their identities.

Some high-profile figures were also involved in the trial.

Brendan Nelson, the former defence minister and former chair of the council of the Australian War Memorial, was a character witness for Roberts-Smith.

Andrew Hastie, an Afghanistan veteran and former SAS soldier, was Australia's assistant defence minister when he gave evidence for the newspapers.

Nick McKenzie and his co-author Chris Masters did not give evidence. 

Also testifying for the media outlets was Roberts-Smith's ex-wife Emma Roberts who denied seeking revenge or wanting to destroy him in court, saying she hoped he "survives this nightmare".

As the defamation case was a civil case, the newspapers needed to prove the truth of the imputations (similar to an accusation) on "the balance of probabilities" — not to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Overall, the cost of the trial was extensive — estimates put the legal bill for the case at more than $25 million for both the former soldier and media firms. 

Ultimately, it was one of the most dramatic and costly trials in Australian legal and military history.

The result. 

On Thursday afternoon, Justice Anthony Besanko found a number of 2018 reports published by The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times about war crimes committed by Roberts-Smith were substantially true.

The Victoria Cross recipient committed a slew of war crimes while in Afghanistan including the murder of unarmed prisoners, the Federal Court judge found.

These claims included that Roberts-Smith executed a prisoner with a prosthetic leg by firing a machine gun into his back in 2009.

The ex-soldier also kicked an unarmed, handcuffed farmer off a cliff in September 2012, and ordered soldiers under his command to execute the man. 

On another occasion, Roberts-Smith pressured a "newly deployed and inexperienced" soldier to kill an elderly, unarmed Afghan to "blood the rookie". Reports he bullied soldiers and assaulted an Afghan civilian were also found to be substantially true.

Roberts-Smith "broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement" and disgraced his country through his conduct, Justice Besanko found.

The judge did not find in favour of all the newspapers' defence.

Reports of domestic violence towards Roberts-Smith's mistress were found to have been defamatory.

"I am not satisfied that (the woman's) evidence is sufficiently reliable to form the basis of a finding that the assault occurred," the judge said.

A further claim that Roberts-Smith threatened to report another soldier to the International Criminal Court for firing at civilians was also defamatory.

However, Justice Besanko agreed with the media companies' contextual truth defences, saying harm from these defamatory reports would not have further damaged the ex-soldier's already battered reputation.

For some of the most serious allegations, the judge found truth was established. This meant Roberts-Smith defamation case ultimately was dismissed.

What happens now?

The man at the centre of the trial, Roberts-Smith, was not in court when the judgment was handed down. Having attended every day of the trial, he is currently in Bali, Indonesia.

It's important to note Roberts-Smith has not been found guilty of a war crime. He has not been charged with any criminal offences and maintains his innocence.

Ultimately, commentators were saying an appeal could be expected from the losing side, whichever way the judgment went down. So it is a possibility for Robert-Smith's legal team to wish to appeal. Roberts-Smith has been given 42 days to appeal the decision.

His legal team has asked for an extension of time to lodge an appeal of the decision.

As for the costs, the barrister representing the three newspapers said his clients would seek their costs of defending the lawsuits. Roberts-Smith will now likely have to pay costs to the defendants' legal team, how much yet is still to be determined.

In the wake of the ruling, Nine's managing director of publishing said the decision was also a vindication of the brave soldiers of the SAS "who had the courage to speak the truth about what happened in Afghanistan".

Investigations by the Office of the Special Investigator and Australian Federal Police into alleged war crimes by Australian troops in Afghanistan are ongoing.

With AAP.

Feature Image: AAP.