Act. The respondents submit that Person 14 candidly accepted that he was dishonest about his contact with the media when asked by the ADF. Person 14 explained that the reasons he had been untruthful with the ADF was because he was focussed on self-preservation, security and safety, because in that period of time people who were seen to have spoken to the media were being targeted and because there was a quick turnaround for the record of conversation and he was under a lot of pressure. The record of conversation was conducted with the unit at short notice in an attempt to determine who had disclosed information to the media about an address given to the unit by Special Operations Commander Australia (SOCAUST). The respondents submit that it is clear from the evidence that there was a very strong feeling within the regiment against members who had spoken to the media. Person 7 gave evidence that at a meeting there was concern being raised about people speaking to the media rather than following proper processes and that view was put, according to Person 7, "very strongly". The respondents submit that, in the circumstances outlined, Person 14's lack of complete honestly was confined to a discrete topic, of no substantive relevance to these proceedings, in circumstances where there were particular reasons for him to fear personal and professional consequences if he were to speak candidly. They submit that Person 14's initial lack of complete candour about his contact with journalists does not provide a basis not to accept his evidence on other issues.
751 Person 14 was honest about what he was able to say and what he was not able to say. He could not identify the soldier he saw shoot EKIA57. He admitted that he was unable to say that the Minimi he saw the applicant carrying into the vehicle layup position was the Minimi that was used in relation to the dark object (LUP equals VDOP). The respondents submit that had Person 14 been attempting falsely to implicate the applicant in a war crime, it would have been expected that his evidence would have done so directly. The respondents submit that there is no explanation for how the evidence of Person 14 is so consistent with that of Person 41 other than that both are true.
752 The respondents submit that the applicant's version of his engagement of EKIA57 was not put to Person 14. Person 14's unchallenged evidence as to his location means he would have been perfectly placed to observe the engagement of EKIA56 and EKIA57 if the applicant's account was correct. The failure to put that account to Person 14 deprived him of the opportunity of providing a detailed rejection of it. The respondents ask the Court to infer that the account was not put to Person 14 for fear of what he would have said about it. As I have made clear in relation to previous witnesses, I reject this submission. Person 14 gave his evidence after the
