Now, it's the case, isn't it, that if Person 4 only intended to fire one shot from his rifle, it would have been easier and quicker for him to borrow the suppressor from someone who had one already fitted to the end of their rifle rather than rummaging through his pack, correct?
MR MOSES: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well - - -
HIS HONOUR: What's the basis for the objection?
MR MOSES: Well, your Honour, it's calling for the witness to speculate as to what Person 4 may or may not have done in respect of a situation that the witness is not aware of.
HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. I overrule the objection. Yes.
MR OWENS: Do you remember the question?---Could you repeat it, please.
Sure. If - - -?---Obviously, I – I – I remember all the steps you went through. Just what the last part was, please.
I understand. What I was putting to you is that if Person 4 only intended to fire one shot from his rifle, it would have been an easier and quicker process simply to borrow the suppressor of a nearby operator whose suppressor was actually fitted to his rifle at the time?---Or he could have asked someone to go into his pack and pull it out for him as another option, which would have been just as fast.
It still would have required that person then to open the pack, to look inside the pack, to find it, to get it out, to close the pack - - -?---I - - -
- - - repeat the process, correct?---I mean, we can speculate all day, but I can't put myself in the mind of Person 4.
696 The respondents submit that there may have been circumstances in which it made it more convenient for Person 4 to borrow Person 41's suppressor and because Person 41 considered it to be quite safe at the time, he was content to lend his suppressor to Person 4.
697 The respondents submit that if Person 41 was making up his account, it is inherently unlikely that he would have built such a "strange" detail into his evidence about the request to borrow his suppressor. In the circumstances, the presence of the detail enhances, rather than undermines, the credibility of Person 41's account.
698 The evidence does not establish a reason why Person 4 or the applicant would want or need to borrow a suppressor from Person 41. That is a matter to be taken into account. At the same time, it seems to me that there is considerable force in the respondents' submission that it is a very strange detail for Person 41 to include in his account if he is making up that account.
699 Fifthly, Person 41 did not explain why it was 11 years before he told anybody about what he had seen. He gave an account of what he had seen in 2020. The evidence of Person 41 was
