mental health grounds. He has been diagnosed with mental health illnesses, including a general anxiety disorder in 2007 and depression in 2014–2015. Person 24 has been diagnosed with alcohol dependence and that continues. He is taking blood pressure medication and what he described as a "very small" depression medication called Duloxetine. He takes pain medications. He has not been told that his mental health affects his memory. He has not had flashbacks in relation to his service in Afghanistan, although he has had nightmares. Person 24 did not accept that his anxiety caused him to have memory or concentration difficulties.
769 Person 24 was cross-examined in closed Court on 15 March 2022 about what he had told a medical practitioner and his visits to a psychiatrist. The diagnoses of those practitioners were the subject of questions as was the medication that Person 24 is taking. He said that he had difficulty recalling some events from his time in Afghanistan. His memory had improved. It was suggested to Person 24 that it was difficult for him to recall what occurred 13 years ago. In answering that suggestion, he gave the following response:
Not when it comes to watching an execution.
770 Person 31 was a witness called by the respondents. Person 31 gave evidence that Person 24 had told him whilst they were both still serving in the regiment that he had seen something at W108. He did not recall the exact detail.
771 The respondents submit that the challenge based on mental health issues and medication was not capable of undermining Person 24's evidence on any matter of importance. They point to the fact that no expert evidence was adduced to prove a causal relationship between Person 24's health and his ability to give honest and accurate evidence. To the extent that Person 24's memory on matters of detail may be deficient, there was no suggestion that he misremembered or otherwise imagined any of the key events, the subject of his evidence. The respondents submit that if Person 24's evidence is to be challenged, it could only be on the basis of deliberate dishonesty.
772 The respondents submit that the second basis upon which Person 24's evidence was challenged was what they referred to as an "outright attack" on the honesty and truthfulness of Person 24's evidence about seeing the applicant carry a man, throw him on the ground and shoot him. It was suggested to Person 24 on numerous occasions that his evidence was false or that he had come to Court to tell a story or that he was making his evidence up. It was suggested that he was trying to backup Person 14 and his evidence. The suggestion seemed to be that his account
