688 Person 29 said that if a suppressor was not on the weapon, it would be carried "readily accessible on the body armour" and that although there was no designated place for it to be carried on the body armour, "the member had to be able to access it himself". Person 29 said that a suppressor was designated to be carried in a position whereby it could be retrieved by the soldier carrying it.
689 Person 35 said that he had never borrowed another person's suppressor. He explained his reason as follows:
By adding the suppressor onto the end of your barrel, you change – you change the barrel harmonics of that rifle. They're – in layman's terms, that's – that bullet is not going to go where you want it to go once you suppress that gun with a suppressor that's not yours, that has not been zeroed to your rifle. That's not something you change out. It would make as much sense to change out a suppressor as it would to change out a scope mid operation.
690 The applicant also referred to the evidence of Person 4 in cross-examination to the effect that he was competent in respect of the operation of weaponry and knew what he was doing. He knew what type of equipment to carry with him in respect of his weapons and he did that without exception during his whole time within the SASR.
691 The applicant makes two submissions about Person 41's evidence that he lent his suppressor to Person 4. First, he submits that in light of the above evidence, it is unlikely that Person 4 forgot to bring his suppressor with him during the mission to W108 or that he had placed it in a position on his body that meant it was not readily accessible to him. The Court is also asked to infer that another reason why Person 4 would not have borrowed a suppressor is because using somebody else's suppressor may affect the firing ability of the rifle. The second reason relied on by the applicant is that there was no apparent reason for Person 4 to borrow a suppressor because it would not hide the fact that someone had been shot and the use of a suppressor would simply have the effect of distinguishing the shots as friendly fire.
692 Person 4's request to borrow Person 41's suppressor was the subject of considerable evidence and debate during the course of the trial. In cross-examination, Person 41 agreed that a suppressor is an essential part of his kit and that Person 29 required every member of his patrol to use suppressors as part of standard operating procedure. Person 41 said he could not recall if it was still personal choice back then or it was "the patrol commander said you will use a suppressor". Person 41 did not know what the position was in respect of Person 5's patrol. Person 41 also said that in 2009, a suppressor was an item which members of Person 29's patrol would carry with them at all times. Suppressors were used at night time. Person 14 agreed in
