Ben Roberts-Smith launches brand amid war crimes trial and legal battle

Consensus Summary

Ben Roberts-Smith, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, has launched a commercial brand called EPIC 1 TWO to generate income for his family and legal defense amid ongoing war crimes charges. The charges stem from allegations that he murdered or ordered the killing of five unarmed Afghan detainees during deployments in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012, as reported by both the Guardian and SMH. Roberts-Smith denies all accusations, insisting he acted within his training and the rules of engagement. His legal troubles began after his arrest in April, with bail granted following a $250,000 surety paid by his father, a former Western Australian supreme court judge. The brand’s promotional video, shared on Instagram, frames Roberts-Smith as an underdog, emphasizing resilience and perseverance despite adversity.

The allegations against Roberts-Smith involve three distinct incidents: two in the village of Kakarak on 12 April 2009, where he is accused of killing a father and son, and a third on 11 September 2012, involving the execution of a farmer named Ali Jan. Additional charges allege his complicity in the murders of two prisoners in October 2012 in Syahchow. Roberts-Smith’s legal team has framed the brand as a means to support his family while facing intense media scrutiny, with critics often targeting those who express support for him. The Guardian notes that his bail was varied in June to allow him to attend the opening of the Anzac Hall in Canberra, an event held on Sunday, underscoring his continued public profile despite the legal proceedings.

Roberts-Smith has positioned EPIC 1 TWO as a symbol of hope for underdogs, drawing parallels to his own struggles. In interviews, he has described the brand as a way to financially sustain his family and legal defense, with plans to sell branded clothing at a discount for veterans. The SMH highlights his growing influence in right-wing politics, with figures like One Nation leader Pauline Hanson publicly advocating for him, including at a Justice for Ben barbecue held this year. Roberts-Smith’s legal team registered the business name in August, with his partner listed as a director, further solidifying the brand’s commercial intent. Both outlets emphasize his denial of wrongdoing and his portrayal of himself as a victim of a targeted campaign.

While both sources agree on the core details of Roberts-Smith’s legal battle and the launch of his brand, discrepancies emerge in the timeline of the alleged crimes. The Guardian restricts the incidents to between 2009 and 2012, whereas the SMH extends the period back to 2006. Additionally, the Guardian specifies his arrest occurred in April, a detail omitted by the SMH. These differences, though minor, reflect varying emphases in the reporting. The Guardian focuses more on the legal and personal aspects of his case, including his bail conditions and attendance at the Anzac Hall event, while the SMH underscores his political alliances and the commercial registration of his brand. Both outlets, however, agree on the gravity of the charges and the public’s divided reaction to his case.

As Roberts-Smith’s trial approaches, the unresolved question remains whether his brand will succeed in its stated goals of financial support and public advocacy. The SMH notes that he was granted permission to travel last week to Canberra for an event marking 25 years of Australian service in Afghanistan, suggesting his legal constraints have not entirely limited his movements. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s mention of his varied bail conditions indicates ongoing negotiations over his freedom. With right-wing figures continuing to rally behind him and media scrutiny intensifying, the next phase of his legal battle—and the fate of EPIC 1 TWO—will likely draw further public attention. Both articles suggest that the outcome of his trial could have lasting implications for his reputation and the broader debate over military conduct in Afghanistan.