The witness, known only as Person 17, accused the war hero of domestic violence in an incident that allegedly took place in March last year. In November, she made a plea to keep her identity hidden in the ongoing defamation cases, citing “genuine fears” for her mental and physical safety if her name became public.

In a judgment released Friday, Justice Anthony Besanko found that, on the evidence, there was “sufficient risk” of threats or intimidation to Person 17 as a proposed witness in the proceedings.

“I take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice… Nevertheless, I am satisfied that, at this stage, the order sought should be made on the basis that it is necessary to protect the safety of Person 17,” Justice Besanko said.

Roberts-Smith is suing three publications — Fairfax Media, The Age and Federal Capital Press of Australia — over a Sydney Morning Herald article that accused the former corporal of domestic violence and war crimes during his time in Afghanistan. The three journalists who wrote the article, Nick McKenzie, David Wroe and Chris Masters, have also been named as defendants.

In an affidavit filed in October last year, Person 17 says she was in an “intimate relationship” with Roberts-Smith from October 2017 to April 2018. She claims that during an argument on March 28, Roberts-Smith punched her in the face, causing a black eye, and says a series of messages sent through the chat app Telegram show Roberts-Smith “coaching” her about how to explain the black eye to her husband.

Person 17 said she feared for her safety after several anonymous phone calls and emails were sent to her and her husband. She also claims her concerns worsened after reading media reports of threatening letters sent to witnesses in the Brereton Inquiry into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, in which Roberts-Smith himself is being investigated.

“My grave fear is that if my name and identity is revealed, I will be subjected to harassment and vitriol by people who support Ben and think I am just a lying woman trying to bring down a war hero. That makes me feel physically and mentally unsafe,” she said in the affidavit.

A report by Konrad Buczynski, security risk consultant with Askew & Associates, submitted by the three publications as evidence in the interlocutory application confirmed Person 17’s fears that there would be an “increased risk” to her safety if her identity was revealed, including a higher likelihood of assault or homicide.

“[In] the case of the risk of ‘assault causing injury’, the level of anonymity presently afforded to Person 17 is considered key to retaining a lower likelihood of the risk occurring, resulting in a MEDIUM level of current risk – if her identity were to become widely known the level of risk would increase to HIGH,” Buczynski wrote.

“[In] the case of homicide, the risk rating is assessed to be MEDIUM should her identity continue to be protected – this increases to HIGH if anonymity were to be removed.”

Social media comments in response to an article in The Australian which reported that the ACT Police had dropped the domestic violence investigation because of insufficient evidence further heightened her fears, Person 17 said in her affidavit.

“Reading these comments, especially ‘sue them then kill them’ and ‘why isn’t the skank on charges for wasting taxpayers money’ and ‘FALSE ALLEGATIONS IN DV CASES MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND PUNISHED’ as well as suggestions of acts of physical violence really frightened me. I felt sick with worry, panicked and like I was a target,” she wrote.

The ACT police dropped the allegations, Person 17 said, because she didn’t want to make a formal police complaint as she was “genuinely scared” for her safety if the matter proceeded to court.

Mark O’Brien Legal represents Roberts-Smith. MinterEllison represents Fairfax, The Age and The Federal Capital Press of Australia. Potts Lawyers represents Person 17.

The three cases are Ben Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (ACN 003 357 720) & Ors, Ben Roberts-Smith v The Age Company Pty Ltd ACN 004 262 702 & Ors, and Ben Roberts-Smith v The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd ACN 008 394 063 & Ors.