discovered during a search of the compound and there was no challenge to Person 18's evidence on that point. The fact that there was no challenge to Person 18's evidence does not mean that it has to be accepted as the applicant gave his evidence first. The applicant gave evidence to the effect that the machine-gun on p 17 of exhibit R8 (the gun on the right) was the weapon carried by EKIA56 and that the rifle with the strip of blue tape around its barrel (the gun on the left) was the bolt action rifle being carried by EKIA57. He said that the two guns did not form part of a weapons cache found in the north-eastern corner of W108 under a haystack as the title to the photographs of the weapons suggests.
839 Person 18 said that after he had finished taking the photographs up to p 29 of exhibit R18, he leaned up against "the hay store or what remained of that–of the hay shed, and had my arm go into, fell in, hit something hard, and that's when I pulled out these–these weapons". They are the weapons shown on p 30 of exhibit R18 and include the machine-gun and the bolt action rifle previously referred to. The description in the Exploitation Report of the provenance of these weapons supports Person 18's account.
840 I accept Person 18's evidence on this matter. I reject the applicant's evidence.
841 Fifthly, the applicant's account of what happened immediately after the engagements was improbable. The applicant gave the following evidence:
Had you told anybody at this point what had happened?---I do not recall telling anybody specifically in terms of having a conversation with a particular individual, but it is inevitable that if that had happened – that's one of the reasons I either went back inside – I may have even made a radio transmission. But it was known that an engagement had taken place. I may have radioed Person 5; I may have physically told Person 5. I actually don't remember. It could have been Person 29. But the reason for going back in is to give them the situational awareness of what's happening.
…
Now, after you went back inside, what did you do then?---Going back inside, it was effectively, I believe, SSE called, or to start SSE. And being a 2IC, that was one of my responsibilities was to help initiate the process. Not necessarily carry it out, but help start the process.
842 It seems to me improbable that the applicant, having just been involved in engagements with two insurgents who were quite close to the compound, would not remain outside the compound in a security position, but instead would go inside and help with the SSE process. It is improbable that, having regard to the engagements, the area would have been left without increased security. The applicant was asked whether he recalled the other SASR operator remaining outside to guard that entrance and he said he did not know. At the same time, it is
