Page:Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) (2023, FCA).pdf/214

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

he has been in photographs showing people drinking from the prosthetic leg. He has two glasses shaped like a prosthetic leg with the emblem of 2 Squadron engraved on it. The applicant agreed that as a senior member of the troop, he encouraged and contributed to a culture within the troop in which it was acceptable to drink from the prosthetic leg.

Aspects of the Applicant's Account and those of his Witnesses

815 The applicant's account of the engagements of EKIA56 and EKIA57 outside the north-western corner of the compound is set out above (at [595]–[642]).

816 On the applicant's account, EKIA56 was shot some distance outside the north-western corner of the compound. The body lay where it fell and was not dragged back by the second operator. The body of the man with the prosthetic leg was dragged back by the applicant.

817 The applicant gave evidence that he did not know whether the body of EKIA56 was moved. For reasons previously set out, I find that the body of EKIA56 was not moved (at [572]–[577]).

818 With one exception, none of the witnesses apart from the applicant gave evidence that they saw the body of EKIA56 outside the compound. The one exception was Person 5 who gave an account to the effect that as he left W108 to conduct a reconnaissance on W109, he passed the body of EKIA57 at a point which he marked with the letter "S" on exhibit A194 and the body of EKIA50 at a point he marked "P" on that exhibit. He did not see any other bodies at that point in time. He said that when he returned, there was another body there at that point near the body of EKIA57. He marked the location of that body with the letter "T" on exhibit A194. Person 5 said that his understanding was that EKIA56 was one of the two squirters that ran away to the northwest. They were on the outside of the compound walls and then they were dragged back. He was told this by the applicant. The evidence of the body of EKIA56 being dragged back is not consistent with the applicant's evidence as corrected.

819 Person 29 saw two bodies and one of them was the body of EKIA50. Initially, Person 29 said in his outline that one of the bodies was of a man with a prosthetic leg. His evidence was different and he said he could not remember an identifying feature of either body. As I have said, Person 29's evidence on this topic was unsatisfactory (at [335]–[340]).

820 Person 35 said that he did not see the body of EKIA56 or the body of EKIA57 on the ground at any time during the mission to W108.


Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555
204