EKIA56. He has no recollection of anyone ever telling him that they had shot that man. Although I do not accept the evidence of Person 5 or Person 35, it may be noted that on their evidence, the applicant's evidence of not knowing the identity of the second operator becomes even more improbable. In the case of Person 5, I refer to his quite detailed evidence of seeing the applicant and Person 4 and being advised by the applicant that they had just engaged two squirters to the north and of seeing the applicant and Person 4 near bodies upon his return from W109 and his evidence that at the troop debrief that Person 4 had said words to the effect that he had killed an insurgent and outlined the circumstances. In the case of Person 35, I refer to his evidence that he heard at Tarin Kowt after the mission that the applicant and Person 4 had had engagements.
826 Person 5 said that the fact that Person 4 had had an engagement on the day of W108 was discussed in the troop debrief and the applicant would have been there. Person 5 gave the following evidence:
And so do you say that everyone in the debrief would have known that it was Person 4 who had the second engagement outside that corner of the compound?---Yes. Again, it was a troop debrief, so everybody would – would have been – would have heard what he – what was said in there.
Has Mr Roberts-Smith ever spoken to you about the fact that Person 4 had an engagement of other insurgent?---Yes, the – it would have happened in the same debrief.
And has Mr Roberts-Smith told you that he knew that it was Person 4 that shot that insurgent?---Yes. It began – well, I'm answering the same question – it was under debrief.
So is this right? The troop debrief it was made very clear that it was Person 4 who had shot the second insurgent?---As – as – as best as I can recall it; you know, it was 13 years ago.
827 If that evidence of Person 5 was correct, it would significantly undermine the applicant's evidence that he never had any knowledge of who shot the second insurgent in the engagement he described.
828 Fourthly, there are aspects of the applicant's account of dragging the body of EKIA57 back which are improbable. In his evidence-in-chief, the applicant said that the insurgent he engaged had fallen past the line of the compound. For him to go outside and into the open and try and clear the body or carry out any form of SSE process with respect to the body would be dangerous because he would be exposing himself with no cover. In the circumstances, the applicant moved out and grabbed hold of the insurgent and dragged him back perhaps five metres just so it was on the inside of the corner of the building side with the protection of the
