The Australian government is trying to stay clear of the issue, by saying that this was a civil, not a criminal case, and that criminal cases against ADF members who allegedly committed #WarCrimes a decade ago are beginning to make their way through the courts. #BenRobertsSmith's defenders (many of them powerful and influential figures) are emphasising the same distinction, effectively claiming that nothing at all needs to be done until a criminal case is brought and the truth established to a higher standard. BRS still has "a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty". And this civil case was not seeking to establish criminal guilt.

Let's consider that claim: that since BRS has not been proven guilty in a criminal case, but 'only' lost a civil case, it is not appropriate for, say, the #AustralianWarMemorial to remove the displays that celebrate BRS (such as his uniform and two large portraits of him), as some are now pushing for. That is, his defenders claim he ought to still be considered innocent of the crimes that a court of law just found to be true (at least true on the balance of probabilities).

There is much confusion about these matters. Here's how I understand it.