Loading Fairfax does not concede that it made the claims, alleged by Mr Roberts-Smith. If the court decides otherwise, however, Fairfax says it can prove the claims are true. The woman – known only as Person 17 – is a key witness in the defamation proceedings. In an affidavit released by the court, Person 17 said she and Mr Roberts-Smith had an affair between October last year and April while they were both married to other partners.

The documents filed with the court show that Person 17 and Mr Roberts-Smith used burner phones and secret email addresses to communicate during their affair. Person 17 said that on the night of March 28, Mr Roberts-Smith punched her hard to the left side of the face. The following day, she said, they exchanged messages on Telegram and referred to her telling her husband she suffered a black eye when she fell down stairs. In one message, included in the woman’s affidavit, ‘‘Rob Smith’’ writes: ‘‘I hope your head feels ok...’’ Person 17: ‘‘Thanks. It’s actually killing me. I feel awful.’’ She said in the message she had made an appointment to see a doctor and had told her husband about her injury, and ‘‘he reacted exactly how you predicted’’.

Later, ‘‘Rob Smith’’ writes: ‘‘Does he think I did it?’’ Loading Person 17: ‘‘Yeah he did to begin with & he didn’t believe that I’d fall down stairs. I just told him what we talked about.’’ The woman wrote that her husband hadn’t understood why she would spend the night by herself and didn’t call him for help. ‘‘Rob Smith’’: ‘‘Just say you didn’t realise until you woke up as it has swelled. Also say you were embarrassed [to] call him.’’

Person 17: ‘‘Yeah I said that last night I thought it was only a bit swollen up where I’d knocked it so I put some ice on it & fell asleep not realising until this morning how serious it was. I’ve some other bruises – including a massive one on my thigh on the same side of my body – which will hopefully make the falling story more believable.’’ In her affidavit, Person 17 said she photographed her injuries and contacted police, but didn’t want to make a formal complaint against Mr Roberts-Smith as she feared for her safety and that of her children if her name became public. She was scared she would be targeted by people who supported Mr Roberts-Smith. The woman did fall down the stairs after the dinner at Parliament House, but alleges the bruise to her face occurred when she was punched. Justice Anthony Besanko last week ruled the woman’s identity should remain suppressed until he made any further orders. Lawyers for Fairfax Media supported the woman’s bid to remain anonymous and told the court there were concerns for her safety if her identity was revealed. Mr Roberts-Smith’s legal team argued that any threats against Person 17 were not serious enough to warrant her name being suppressed.

In the documents released by the court, Person 17 said she became extremely anxious for her safety after reading comments online about the allegations against Mr Roberts-Smith. She feared she would be subjected to abuse and vitriol by people who supported him and who thought she was a liar and ‘‘trying to bring down a hero’’. Among the online posts she highlighted was an image of a man with a gun under the words: ‘‘Me when anyone insults our prophet Ben Roberts-Smith’’. Another post said the people behind the ‘‘smear’’ should be ‘‘hung, drawn and quartered’’. There is no suggestion Mr Roberts-Smith poses an ongoing threat to the woman. An expert witness report by security risk consultant Konrad Buczynski said the likelihood Person 17 would be at risk of assault or possible homicide would rise to ‘‘high’’ if her identity became known. In submissions put to the court, Mr Roberts-Smith’s lawyers said Mr Buczynski’s claims were ‘‘extraordinary’’, and that while the comments online were aggressive and disturbing, Fairfax did not establish a credible threat to Person 17’s safety.

They also questioned why Fairfax previously reported some details about the woman. Lawyers for Fairfax argued Person 17 was scared for her safety and would become a target for people seeking retaliation if her name became public. Suppressing her identity, they argued, would ensure she would be able to give evidence without intimidation. The defamation trial is expected to start some time next year, although no date has been set.