Former SAS soldier Ben Roberts-Smith is facing five counts of murder allegedly committed during his deployments to Afghanistan. A central figure in the prosecution’s case is Henry Jones, a former soldier who has agreed to testify against his former corporal in exchange for immunity from prosecution.
The Witness and the Immunity Deal
Henry Jones, referred to in court documents as Person 66, is an unusual witness in the war crimes proceedings. While many veterans involved in these allegations maintain a low profile, Jones has pursued a public career as a business coach and appeared on two seasons of a reality television show.
Jones as well established a veterans’ foundation under a special forces charity associated with former prime minister Tony Abbott. Despite admitting to murder according to the Director of Public Prosecutions, his identity has been suppressed by the Federal Court under the National Security Information Act.
Jones is one of four low-level soldiers who have accepted immunity deals from the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions. This approach has sparked controversy, with former NSW crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen questioning why four individuals allegedly involved in murder are indemnified while only one faces the full legal consequences.
The Syahchow Incident
On October 20, 2012, Jones was part of a five-member team led by Roberts-Smith in the village of Syahchow. Prosecutors allege that two male prisoners were moved to the edge of a cornfield, where one was shot by a member of a different team.
Court documents assert that Roberts-Smith then removed the handcuffs and blindfold of the second prisoner and ordered Jones to shoot him. Jones allegedly paused before shooting the prisoner two to three times in the chest from a range of two meters, killing him.
Legal Battles and “Superior Orders”
The prosecution intends to use Jones’ testimony to argue that a culture of “blooding” was led by non-commissioned officers. Roberts-Smith has denied using the term and claimed he only heard the phrase a few years ago.
Under international law, following a superior’s order to shoot a prisoner is not a valid defense against murder. However, a 2024 internal document from the Australian Federal Police’s commander of special investigations emphasized that “superior orders” are a legitimate excuse for committing war crimes.
The Role of Andrew Hastie
Liberal MP Andrew Hastie, who served as an SAS platoon commander and captain, is another notable witness. While he did not notice the shootings in Syahchow, he testified in a 2022 defamation lawsuit regarding a radio exchange.
Hastie testified that when he asked Roberts-Smith what had happened after shots were fired, the corporal replied, “Just a couple more dead c…s.” Roberts-Smith has denied ordering the execution of any prisoner.
Current Status and Trial Outlook
Roberts-Smith has been granted bail in the NSW Local Court and is expected to return to court in early June. Despite the charges, he continues to receive public support and the RSL has stated he is able to attend Anzac Day commemorations.
The prosecution is seeking the maximum penalty of a life term for each of the five murder counts. The trial is expected to begin in about two years, though it could be delayed or cancelled if the defense argues that intense publicity has made a fair trial impossible.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the “blooding” practice alleged by prosecutors?
Prosecutors allege that “blooding” became a way to describe the murder of prisoners at the direction of superiors, used as leverage to secure the loyalty of new SAS team members.
Why was Henry Jones granted immunity?
Henry Jones agreed to testify against his former corporal, Ben Roberts-Smith, in return for immunity from prosecution regarding his own admitted role in the execution of a prisoner.
What is the potential penalty for Ben Roberts-Smith?
The prosecution has stated it will seek the maximum penalty, which is a life term for each of the five counts of war crime murder.
How should the legal system balance the require for witness testimony with the ethics of granting immunity to those who admit to serious crimes?