Summary of "The secret $700k payout to a Ben Roberts-Smith witness"

Overview

New South Wales editor Steven Rice outlines a major late development in Ben Roberts‑Smith’s long-running defamation battle with Nine Entertainment: Nine secretly paid a key witness (referred to in reporting as “person 17,” Roberts‑Smith’s former mistress) about $700,000 after she had given evidence, apparently to prevent further allegations.

Key developments

Nine paid person 17 roughly $700,000 after she had given evidence in the defamation trial.
Person 17 had made serious claims in Nine’s reporting and in court about Roberts‑Smith’s conduct in Afghanistan (including assault and killings).
She also accused Nine reporter Nick McKenzie of improper conduct — alleging McKenzie told her he had access to Roberts‑Smith’s legal defence and that he broke a promise not to identify her as a source.
After giving evidence, person 17 threatened legal action against Nine and McKenzie and then received the large settlement.

Trial findings

In the defamation trial, Nine successfully defended most of its reporting on the balance of probabilities.
The judge found Roberts‑Smith had killed four Afghans, a finding that severely damaged his reputation as a decorated soldier.
However, the judge found insufficient evidence to prove the specific assault allegation against Roberts‑Smith involving person 17.

The payment and its implications

Rice describes the $700,000 payment as highly unusual and “explosive.”
He explains that media organisations sometimes pay to quietly resolve legal or reputational risks even when they believe they acted properly.
The late settlement raised questions about motives, timing and the effect on public understanding of the trial’s evidence.

Wider practical risks of defamation litigation

Suing for defamation can be financially and personally damaging even for successful plaintiffs: lengthy litigation, legal costs, and reputational consequences often follow.
Rice cites other high‑profile Australian examples (discussed in the interview) to illustrate how costly and damaging these fights can be.

Public reaction and lasting impact

Public reaction is mixed:
- Some Australians may sympathise with Roberts‑Smith because of the wartime context and the harsh realities of combat.
- Others accept the court’s findings and the reputational consequences that followed.
Rice’s closing view is that the story and its reputational fallout are unlikely to settle completely. As he puts it:

“The Ben Roberts‑Smith case is never over.”