‘I don’t want to be here’: Andrew Hastie was a reluctant but ‘straightforward’ witness in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case

Andrew Hastie leaving the federal court in 2022 after giving evidence as part of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP View image in fullscreen Andrew Hastie leaving the federal court in 2022 after giving evidence as part of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP Analysis ‘I don’t want to be here’: Andrew Hastie was a reluctant but ‘straightforward’ witness in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case Ben Doherty The Liberal MP and former SAS soldier is under attack from One Nation after complying with a subpoena to give evidence in the failed 2022 civil case Get our new political email, free app or daily news podcast “I don’t dislike Mr Roberts-Smith at all. I pity Mr Roberts-Smith. I pity this whole process. I don’t want to be here.” Andrew Hastie was a reluctant witness in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case. Hastie appeared only under force of subpoena in 2022: compelled to attend court, obliged to swear an oath, and to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. His was an unhappy (of many) visit to the witness box. But it brought with it an additional scrutiny: he was, at the time of the case, not only a member of parliament, but the assistant minister for defence. Of the dozens of former SAS soldiers compelled to give evidence to the defamation case – many resentfully – Hastie was the only one named and photographed, the only one not afforded the protection of being a “sensitive witness”. In his judgment, Justice Anthony Besanko was approbative: “Mr Hastie was an honest and straightforward witness.” Three times, in fact, he characterised the former officer, now MP, as “straightforward” in his testimony. Of Hastie’s former comrade who brought the defamation case – Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith – Besanko was equally forthright, but less complimentary. “[Roberts-Smith] was not an honest and reliable witness. “In each case, [his] motive for the lie is the realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth.” Now, for his testimony, Hastie has been referred to as a “gutless maggot” and a “traitor” in a cartoon posted online by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. Hanson, personally, said she would prefer to call Hastie a “wanker”. Membership of “the regiment” – the SAS – is famously clandestine. Roberts-Smith and Hastie are perhaps its best-known former members. The pair’s service, while contemporaneous, was not tightly aligned. They are not close. Hastie, an officer, has written he remembers his first encounter with Roberts-Smith – the corporal ordering officer candidates into push-ups in a dead-of-night training exercise. He told the federal court there was a “widespread view” across the SAS that Roberts-Smith was a bully. Before the federal court, Hastie was asked to testify as to his recollection of an operation on a compound in a village known as Syachow in October 2012. It was his only operation in Afghanistan alongside Roberts-Smith. It was alleged before the federal court that on that mission Roberts-Smith ordered a subordinate soldier – known as Person 66 – to execute an unarmed prisoner in a so-called “blooding” incident. Hastie did not shy away from recounting details of the event in his testimony. Person 66, too, was subpoenaed to appear in court. He refused to answer a question about whether he’d been on operation in Afghanistan with Roberts-Smith as his patrol commander. “Person 66 objected to giving an answer to that question on the ground that it may tend to prove that he had committed the offence of the war crime of murder,” Besanko wrote in his judgment. On those grounds, Besanko could not find the allegation proved. Asked directly whether he ordered Person 66 to kill an unarmed prisoner, Roberts-Smith told the court: “I did not.” Hastie told the court he once held Robert-Smith in “very high regard”. The alleged incident at Syahchow is one of the five war crimes murders with which Roberts-Smith has since been criminally charged. The statement of facts before the court reads that two PUCs – Persons Under Control – were hors de combat after an SAS raid on a compound. The two prisoners were handcuffed and blindfolded at the cessation of the raid. “Roberts-Smith cut the handcuffs from PUC 1 who was in front of Person 66, removed PUC 1’s blindfold and pushed him to the ground. PUC 1 fell backwards and put his hand in front of his face with his palms facing outwards. Roberts-Smith said ‘shoot him’. “Person 66 believed this to be an order from Roberts-Smith. Person 66 was two metres away from PUC 1. Person 66 paused for a moment and then shot PUC 1 two to three times in the chest, killing him.” The statement of facts states: “Person 66 has admitted their role in this incident.” Roberts-Smith’s case is now before the courts. He has consistently and vigorously denied the allegations against him. “For the past 10 years, my family and I have been subject to a campaign to convince Australians that I’ve acted improperly in my service in Afghanistan,” Roberts-Smith said in a statement after he was charged. “As I’ve always maintained, I categorically deny all of these allegations, and while I would’ve preferred these charges not be brought, I will be taking the opportunity to finally clear my name. “I have never run from a fight in my life. I will never give up, and I will always be in the fight.” Explore more on these topics Andrew Hastie Pauline Hanson Ben Roberts-Smith Australian politics One Nation analysis Share Reuse this content