Prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith

Question

1. At the Estimates hearing of 25 May, 2026 Ms Sharp said: "The decision on when and whether to arrest is a matter for our operational partners..... The AFP makes decisions around when and where to arrest. That's an operational decision for them." In relation to the arrest of Mr Ben Roberts-Smith, did anyone from the Office of the CDPP speak to either the Office of the Special Investigator of the Australian Federal Police about the potential jurisdiction of the arrest, prior to it occurring? a. If yes, what was the nature of that consultation? b. If the correspondence was in writing can you please table it. c. Did anyone at the CDPP express a preference for the arrest to occur in any jurisdiction - either internally or to any other government department or agency? 2. Further to Ms Sharp's answer at the Estimates hearing of 25 May, 2026 where she confirmed that the Attorney-General's consent for the charges brought against Mr Ben Roberts-Smith was provided on 1 April, 2026, can the CDPP please answer the following questions: a. On what date was the brief requesting consent to charges against Mr Bernard Collaery and Witness K: i. First sent to the Attorney-General of the day requesting consent to prosecute; and ii. On what date did the Attorney-General of the day provide that consent? 3. In relation changes to the definition of Hors de Combat Ms Sharp's answered at the Estimates hearing of 25 May, 2026 where she said "We identified what we thought was a drafting error in the provision, and we brought that to the attention of the Attorney-General's Department" a. When did the CDPP first identify the apparent drafting error? b. Was that identified by someone within the CDDP or externally? If externally, who? c. When did the CDPP first raise the drafting error with the Attorney-General's Department? Did the CDPP request that the amendment to fix the "drafting error" be made retrospective? d. If the Parliament was to carve out the retrospective application of this amendment, meaning it is only prospective, what would the consequences of that be for the CDDP? e. Will you please table all correspondence between the CDPP and the Attorney-General's Department or the Attorney-General's Office regarding the hors de combat issue. 4. In seeking the consent to prosecute Ben Roberts-Smith, was the jurisdiction of the arrest included in the request? 5. In obtaining the consent to prosecute Ben Roberts-Smith, was the jurisdiction of the arrest discussed with the AGD or the AFP?

Answer

Please see attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• BE26-187.pdf (opens in a new tab)