Mr McKenzie later turned up, that is, the meeting on 27 February 2018, that it was the applicant who shot the Afghan male with the prosthetic leg. Later in closed Court, he gave evidence that he did not tell Mr Masters that he had observed something on 12 April 2009 in relation to the applicant and W108. This summary of the evidence Person 14 gave is broadly correct.
756 Thirdly, the applicant submits that Person 14 admitted lying to the ADF about his contact with Mr Masters and Mr McKenzie when confronted with the record of conversation which he signed on 30 June 2020. The SASR required a signed record of conversation as part of determining who had disclosed information to the media about an address to the SASR given by SOCAUST. The record of conversation which was signed by Person 14 contained the following statement:
You are reminded that it is an offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code to disclose Defence information obtained in your official capacity where you are not authorised to do so. Unauthorised engagement with the media constitutes a breach of Defence's "Media and Communication Policy". Additionally, as a member of this unit you have been specifically directed not to engage with the media.
757 In response to the question about whether he had contacted or been contacted by or communicated with any journalist or media representative in the past 10 years, Person 14 made reference to the applicant, and only the applicant, in June 2018 in Canberra. The applicant was an executive at Seven Media. Person 14 accepted that he had lied to the ADF and that he had been dishonest in his answers. He did not accept that he had done so to cover up the fact that he had been disclosing information to journalists. He denied that he had referred to a meeting with the applicant in June 2018 in an attempt to mislead the ADF. Person 14 agreed that he lied to cover up the fact that he had spoken to Mr Masters and Mr McKenzie. As I have said, he said that he did so because members of the SASR who were seen to be communicating with the media were being targeted. He also referred to the absence of notice that a record of conversation would have to be completed.
758 Person 14 understood he was under an obligation to be honest when signing his record of conversation. The applicant points out that s 55(1) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) provides that a defence member commits an offence if with intent to deceive, the person makes or signs a service document that is false in a material particular. The applicant submits that the Court should infer that Person 14's misstatement in the record of the conversation was deliberate and the Court should have no confidence in the reliability of Person 14 as a witness given that he knowingly made a false representation in circumstances when he understood that he was obliged to tell the truth.
