the commanders' RV, correct?---That's incorrect, Mr Owens.
And so what you've done is change your evidence so as to undermine the account of Person 43?---That's incorrect, Mr Owens.
412 Person 35 was asked about a statement which appeared in the outline of evidence which he approved as follows:
14. While conducting a sensitive site exploitation (SSE) of W108, a tunnel system was discovered within the confines of an outhouse on the northern side of the compound. As I was the smallest of the team, I was nominated to clear the tunnel system. …
413 In cross-examination, it was put to him that he intended to convey by this statement that the tunnel was found after the compound had been declared secure. He denied that. He said the following:
…. Like, when conducting a sensitive site exploitation of Whisky 108, like, there – there was no – there wasn't opposition on the – on the – on the compound itself. We were essentially doing a battle damage assessment on that strike. The many – its clearance was extremely quick; there was no one there. The bomb had destroyed most of the compound that was to the east, so – and you can see in a number of the photos that it was a search, and then that search was still underway when that – that tunnel was found. …
414 Insofar as that statement might be taken to suggest that the troop was unconcerned about the potential risk in approaching and clearing W108, it is contrary to a good deal of other evidence. I realise that there may be a difference in apprehended risk in the approach to the compound and in the clearance of the compound itself, but that was not a difference reflected in the evidence to which I now refer. For example, Person 14 said that he thought he was going to be either wounded or killed on 12 April 2009, "based off how that day had panned out". Person 5 referred to the situation as the troop marched to W108 and said that the situation was already one of troops in contact (TIC). He said that by the nature of what happened that day, TIC was called straightaway and that comes about where hostile intent is present. Person 5 explained that the reason TIC would be called is because "you want to vie for assets", that is, "you want to get assets above you". Person 29 said that in the morning of 12 April 2009, W108 and W109 were regarded as serious threats. Person 38 referred to "a lot of shooting everywhere" on the way to W108 and that insurgents had been engaged on the way to W108. Person 40 said that the expectation was that on the approach to W108 they were going to get engaged and he said that everyone seemed to be on alert level expecting to be shot at.
415 The applicant submits that the force of the respondents' submission concerning the inconsistency between statements in the outlines of evidence and evidence in Court in the case
