particularly trivial, for example, Person 14's reference in his evidence to a black object and his reference in para 25 to a dark object. The respondents submit that none of the matters raised with Person 14 in relation to his evidence are capable of casting any doubt over his honesty, or the reliability of the substance of his evidence. They submit that, if nothing else, it is apparent that the document was not prepared by Person 14, and not approved by him before it was finalised. Person 14 explained that he met with lawyers for the respondents in 2019 in Canberra. MinterEllison Lawyers provided the outline in 2020. He read the outline and had no concerns about it. When he was asked whether he was happy with it, he said that he did not enjoy reading "this stuff". He said that there was not anything in it that was not right. When asked whether it was accurate, he said:
It was close enough for me.
745 Secondly, Person 14 was cross-examined about notes that Mr Masters had made of his conversation with Person 14 at a meeting on 27 February 2018. The notes are exhibit A63 and Person 14 was asked about a note at the bottom of the first page to the following effect:
E Troop went in. P5s patrol seen through the doorway of their next compound. R-S had an M-14 and P4 a Minimi. Understood P4 had shot an old guy with a prosthetic leg.
746 He agreed that his initial assumption "on the ground" was that Person 4 was carrying the Minimi. He later came to learn the identity of the soldier who was carrying the Minimi.
747 Person 14 gave the following evidence with respect to this matter:
So are you now saying that you told Mr Masters that you understood it was Person 4 who shot the Afghan man with the prosthetic leg?---That was my initial assumption on the ground, tactically, but I later came to learn who was carrying the Minimi.
Stick with me. What I'm asking you is did you tell Mr Masters that you understood that Person 4 had shot the Afghan male with the prosthetic leg?---No.
You said that to him, didn't you?---No.
You – just let me finish. You said that to him on 27 February 2018, do you accept that?---No.
You never said to Mr Masters on 27 February 2018 that you understood it was Mr Roberts-Smith who had shot the man with the prosthetic leg; you accept that?---What I accept is that my initial assumption was Person 4 had the Minimi, as the junior person in the patrol, and that was my initial assumption on what I saw.
You are a liar, aren't you?---No.
I'm going to ask you the question again: did you tell Mr Masters at this meeting that it was Mr Roberts-Smith who shot the Afghan male with the prosthetic leg?---I later came to learn that it was Ben Roberts-Smith, and yes, I would have.
