Brereton Report

Brereton Report The Brereton Report is a 2020 independent inquiry led by Major General Paul Brereton into allegations of unlawful killings by members of the Special Air Service Regiment during the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), produced for the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Government. The report examined incidents across multiple provinces in Afghanistan, assessed evidence from service personnel, Afghan civilians, and intelligence sources, and made recommendations to the Inspector‑General of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police. Its publication prompted responses from leaders including the Prime Minister of Australia, the Minister for Defence, and senior commanders within the Australian Army.

Background and investigation

The inquiry was commissioned amid allegations arising from internal reporting, media investigations by outlets such as The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age (Melbourne), and international reporting like The New York Times, with legal and political attention from figures including the Attorney‑General of Australia and the Governor‑General of Australia. The investigation drew on witness testimony from members of the Special Air Service Regiment, personnel from the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force attached to operations, as well as Afghan witnesses connected to operations in Uruzgan Province, Helmand Province, and Kandahar Province. Brereton’s team employed procedures common to statutory inquiries exemplified by prior inquiries such as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and drew forensic methods similar to those used in tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The inquiry worked alongside investigative entities including the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Military Prosecutions (Australia), and referenced international law instruments including the Geneva Conventions in assessing conduct.

Findings and conclusions

The report concluded that credible information indicated unlawful killings of at least several dozen Afghan civilians and prisoners by members of an SAS patrol group, implicating multiple individuals and pointing to systemic failures in command, control, and culture within parts of the Special Air Service Regiment and relevant chains of command in the Australian Army. It described practices such as the planting of false evidence and falsified reporting in patrol notebooks, noting similarities to issues addressed in inquiries into past operations like the My Lai Massacre investigations and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in terms of institutional denial. The report recommended referral of allegations to prosecuting authorities, improved oversight mechanisms comparable to reforms enacted after the Cole Royal Commission and urged revisions to training doctrine referencing manuals used by NATO partners like the British Army and the United States Army.

Legal and disciplinary responses

Following the report, the Australian Federal Police initiated investigations and the Director of Military Prosecutions (Australia) considered charges under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), while the Chief of the Defence Force and the Minister for Defence announced administrative and disciplinary measures. The response involved suspension and reassignment of some individuals pending outcomes, and consideration of court-martials under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth). The international legal community, including scholars associated with institutions like the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court, monitored developments, while comparative cases in jurisdictions such as United Kingdom and United States military justice systems informed procedural choices. Litigation in civilian courts and potential coronial processes were also mooted by legal representatives linked to victims and advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Political and public reaction

The publication generated political debate in the Parliament of Australia, prompting questions from opposition leaders like those in the Australian Labor Party and responses from governing figures in the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia. Public commentary came from veterans’ organisations including the Returned and Services League of Australia, media outlets like ABC News (Australia) and international newspapers such as The Guardian. Calls for transparency were advanced by parliamentary committees, and legal advocacy organisations representing Afghan victims engaged with diplomatic missions including the Embassy of Afghanistan in Canberra and multilateral forums like the United Nations Human Rights Council. High‑profile former military figures and commentators, some with ties to institutions like the Australian War Memorial and the Royal United Services Institute, contributed to debate over accountability and institutional reform.

Impact on Australian Defence Force policy and operations

In the aftermath, the Australian Defence Force announced policy changes addressing oversight, reporting, and cultural reform within special operations forces, aligning with recommendations resembling reforms implemented by partners such as the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and the United States Department of Defense. Revisions targeted doctrine for rules of engagement, training curricula in institutions like the Australian Defence Force Academy, and mechanisms for external review by bodies including the Inspector‑General of the Australian Defence Force. The report influenced recruitment, retention, and mission planning for deployments to multinational operations under coalitions including Operation Slipper and Resolute Support Mission, and affected Australia’s defence diplomacy with allies such as the United States, United Kingdom, and regional partners in forums like the Five Eyes. Longer‑term debates continue over accountability, veterans’ welfare systems administered by agencies like the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (Australia), and Australia's role in international security operations.

Category:Reports about war crimes