No, no. You told the court earlier that you did tell Mr Masters that. Do you recall giving that evidence?---Yes.
So that's what you told Mr Masters, you say?---Yes.
At this meeting?---At the second meeting.
Which Mr McKenzie later turned up at?---Yes.
What I want to suggest to you is that you said to Mr Masters you understood it was Person 4 who had shot the Afghan male; correct?---Incorrect.
And the reason you say you understood was because you never saw anything. Do you accept that?---100 per cent incorrect.
You were spreading rumours, weren't you?---100 per cent incorrect.
You are a liar, aren't you?---I am not.
748 The respondents submit that it is clear on their face that the notes are a very abbreviated summary of what was said at the meeting and do not purport to be a transcript. They also incorporate Mr Masters' impressions about the subject matter. They submit that there is no reason to doubt Person 14's evidence that they do not accurately capture the complexity of his account being an initial assumption that the shooter was Person 4 and then a later realisation that it was the applicant. Another way of putting the matter is that the notes are incomplete.
749 Thirdly, Person 14 was asked about whether he had doubts about the applicant's Victoria Cross and was jealous of the applicant. Person 14 said that he did not question, but had "some doubts" about the awarding of the Victoria Cross to the applicant for his heroic acts of bravery at Tizak. Person 14 denied that he was jealous of the fact that the applicant had been awarded the Victoria Cross. It was never put to Person 14 that he was jealous about the fact that the applicant had been awarded the Victoria Cross and that as a result of that jealously, he told a lie about what happened at W108 (emphasis added). The respondents submit that jealously about the Victoria Cross could not be an adequate explanation for taking such a step as making up a false account of a war crime.
750 Fourthly, Person 14 was cross-examined extensively about his contact with journalists. Save and except with respect to alleged inconsistencies between his account as given to the Court and his account as given to journalists, Person 14's dealings with journalists are not relevant to any matter of substance, or his credit, in this case. The respondents accept that Person 14 was not at the start completely honest in answering questions about his dealings with journalists. Initially, Person 14 did not wish to speak about that topic and he indicated he was not willing to give evidence about it even with the protection of a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence
