The second. I’m not an expert, but it’s what I’ve heard.
So, what deeds was he awarded the medal for, and how connected are they to his alleged crimes?
Demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry in action in the face of a very determined and aggressive enemy and with total disregard for his own safety, Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith initiated an assault against an elevated fortification consisting of three enemy machine gun positions and superior numbers of heavily armed insurgents. With members of his patrol pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he knowingly and willingly exposed his position in order to draw fire away from his team mates and enabled them to apply fire against the enemy. Fighting at ranges as close as 20 metres, he seized the advantage and, demonstrating extreme devotion to duty and the most conspicuous gallantry and with total disregard for his own safety, Corporal Roberts-Smith stormed two enemy machine gun positions killing both machine gun teams. His selfless actions in circumstances of great peril served to enable his patrol to break into the enemy’s defences and to regain the initiative, thereby resulting in a tactical victory against an enemy more than three times the size of the ground force.
To the second part of your question: they were not. So I’m sure this war criminal being stripped of his VC is not an option here.
There is already a criminal investigation under way in Australia into war crimes committed by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, and Roberts-Smith is understood to be one of the subjects of it. The same crimes have already been the subject of the Brereton Report by the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force.
Actually, there is an option C. That or your option B is wrong: since the plaintiff here is the one who was defamed, we can conclude that the the allegedly false statements made by the defendant(s) were probably true, but may still in fact have been false. The plaintiff hasn’t been deprived of anything here, attorneys fees notwithstanding.
I don’t consider that a horrible injustice, a plaintiff failing to meet their burden for a case they themselves have brought over a matter of mere reputation.
My first thought was Branded, with Chuck Connors: Branded (TV series) Intro and Outro, Opening - YouTube
That is still option B. if (and its a big if) he didn’t do any of those things, he was wrongly accused of doing them in a national newspaper, had his reputation dragged through the mud, spent a ton of cash attempting clear his name by means of a defamation case, which he lost despite it actually being defamation. That’s an injustice, not as much as the (IMO more likely) option A (where he did those things, and went completely unpunished except for losing some cash on defamation lawyers) but still an injustice,
Those are the only two options in this case
Just to clarify, this is a VC for Australia, which is not the same as the UK award. Whether his is in jeopardy is a matter for the Australian government and Governor-General.
It’s also worth noting that, even in the case of the UK VC, the King was perhaps not speaking with great deliberation. In fact, in the preceding decades, VCs had been revoked for relatively minor crimes, and this caused backlash. So the King was not opining in the context of “Look, majesty, we all know that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to revoke a VC for petty crimes. But surely there must be some truly extraordinary circumstances in which it might be appropriate to do so?” Rather it was more like “Holy shit! You guys are revoking VCs for bigamy? No I don’t support that! Why, I say that even a murderer should be permitted to wear it upon the gallows!”
But if a VC recipient had actually been pending execution, and not only for post-service civilian crimes but for war crimes closely related to his time in service and the time in which he earned the VC? Who knows. Maybe the King wouldn’t have been so flippant about the possibility of letting the murdering war criminal drop without a medal.
George V could indeed fly off the handle from time to time. It can’t be easy, being inoffensive and diplomatic all the time.
Well before the current accusations, he was just a war hero however many members of the ADF had reservations about Ben Robert- Smith. The SAS doesn’t want heroes, they need team players who act sensibly whilst getting the job. I really have no problem with someone killing some Taliban whatever the circumstance but you have to wonder the type of legal advice he received to sue for defamation.