Roberts-Smith witness – Sarah Matulin called a potential war crimes witness a “traitor” after an Anzac Day post, raising legal and ethical questions as Ben Roberts-Smith faces criminal charges.
April 27, 2026 — 7:30pm
The fallout from Ben Roberts-Smith’s criminal case is now spilling into social media, with his girlfriend at the center of a fresh controversy.
Sarah Matulin posted a sharp public rebuke after Liberal MP Andrew Hastie shared an Anzac Day message showing him holding hands with his daughter and a son carrying a wreath.. Matulin’s deleted comment—described as “yeah you’re a traitor”—targeted Hastie. who has been identified as a potential witness connected to the background of the alleged Afghan mission at the heart of Roberts-Smith’s charges.
What Matulin said, and why the post mattered
The exchange began after Hastie published a Saturday Instagram post captioned around “honouring our veterans and ADF.” His accompanying image showed a family moment linked to remembrance. under the widely used Anzac Day phrase “Lest we forget.” Matulin responded publicly. then later said—through Roberts-Smith’s lawyer—that her remark was a mistake made without Ben’s knowledge.
Hastie, meanwhile, urged people to “reflect carefully on the seriousness of these matters before commenting online,” shifting the focus from the emotion of remembrance to the legal gravity of the case.
The legal line: contact, intimidation, and credibility
Roberts-Smith faces multiple counts of alleged war crimes, with charges that include murder relating to an operational mission in Afghanistan.. The allegation at the center of the dispute involves claims that a junior soldier was ordered to execute an Afghan detainee and that the aftermath was covered up.
In that context. any public contact—or even the appearance of public pressure—toward a person who may later be called as a witness can become legally and ethically charged.. Legal specialists referenced by Misryoum note that there are situations where messaging. targeting. or contacting someone who may be part of a criminal case can be illegal. particularly where it could obstruct the course of justice.
Even where illegality isn’t established, the impact can still be serious.. Experts also described how certain conduct can be viewed as intimidatory or improper. regardless of whether a formal prohibition has been clearly breached.. In Matulin’s case. Misryoum notes there is no suggestion she acted illegally. and Hastie’s status as a witness in the criminal proceedings has not been confirmed.
Why Anzac Day posts are becoming a flashpoint
Anzac Day is typically treated as a unifying national ritual—about respect, memory, and service. But in this moment, remembrance language is colliding with a high-stakes criminal process, and that collision is producing polarised reactions online.
The hostility around Roberts-Smith’s case has been building for months. and it has increasingly taken on a blunt. personalised tone among commentators—especially those who see the allegations as politically motivated or as a betrayal narrative.. Misryoum observes that when political identity and wartime reputation meet legal scrutiny. social media posts can stop being “just tributes” and become perceived signals in a wider campaign.
That dynamic is visible here: Matulin’s “traitor” label turns a remembrance post into something closer to a battle over allegiance. Hastie’s response reframes the conversation toward caution and seriousness, effectively warning that public commentary can carry consequences.
The witness question: immunity, criminal involvement, and what juries do
A key part of the Roberts-Smith proceedings is the question of witnesses—who testifies. what they know. and how credibility is assessed when people involved in related events also face criminal exposure.. Misryoum understands that some courts will warn juries about a witness’s criminal involvement and the incentives that can come with it.. The existence of immunity from prosecution for testimony. for example. does not automatically mean a witness’s evidence should be disregarded.
One of the reasons the debate is so intense is that the public often expects “credibility” to mean “clean hands.” In practice. legal reasoning can treat criminally involved witnesses as still capable of being persuasive. especially when their evidence is consistent with other material and meets standards of proof.
In other words, the fact that someone may be criminally concerned doesn’t automatically make their testimony unreliable. It becomes part of the courtroom balancing act—assessed through cross-examination, corroboration, and judicial guidance.
The broader impact: social media behavior under criminal pressure
Beyond the individuals involved, this episode signals a broader risk: when criminal trials move into the public sphere, ordinary platforms can become arenas where loyalties are performed and reputations are attacked.
For families and supporters, the pressure is emotional—Anzac Day isn’t abstract, and public symbols matter.. But for legal processes, emotion can be corrosive.. It can shift attention from evidence to personalities. and it can potentially complicate the environment in which witnesses later feel safe and unpressured.
Misryoum also notes that this case already has a history of public conflict, including defamation litigation and widespread online contention. The latest backlash suggests that the courtroom isn’t the only battlefield; the internet is now part of the ecosystem around the trial.
What happens next for Roberts-Smith and the case
The criminal charges. including the alleged execution-related conduct and cover-up questions. have created an atmosphere where every public statement is interpreted for meaning.. Roberts-Smith has vowed to fight the charges, and bail conditions have previously included restrictions related to contacting prosecution witnesses.
Matulin’s comment—followed by a later clarification that it was made without Ben’s knowledge—may be weighed in different ways by observers. but the practical reality remains: the case’s seriousness means even small controversies can become significant.. And as the trial progresses. Misryoum expects public speculation around who is—or will be—called as a witness to intensify.
For now, the immediate takeaway is stark: when Anzac Day remembrance intersects with an active war crimes case, a family photo can become contested terrain, and one deleted comment can reopen questions about fairness, legality, and respect for the process.