and I have not addressed consciousness of guilt by reason of lies for the reasons also given in that Section. Nevertheless, a number of matters reflect adversely on the applicant's credit and some such as, for example, the threatening letters to Person 18 reflect very poorly on his credit.
875 The applicant has motives to lie, being a financial motive to support his claim for damages in these proceedings, a motive to restore his reputation which he contends has been destroyed by the publication of the articles and significantly, a motive to resist findings against him which may affect whether further action is taken against him.
876 I take into account the fact that Persons 5, 29 and 35 are close friends of the applicant, that he had arranged the payment of the legal fees of Persons 5 and 35 respectively and, in the case of all three, he has had discussions with them concerning events at W108. These are matters to take into account, but they are not matters that of themselves mean that the evidence of these witnesses is to be rejected.
877 Person 5's account of the role of EKIA56 and EKIA57 is inconsistent between what he claims to have been told by the applicant on the day and statements in the Patrol Debrief on the one hand, and the account in the statement of complaint on or about 15 June 2018 on the other. His account of hearing shots and leaving the Commanders' RV is not supported by any other witness and, in fact, is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses. His evidence of seeing the body of EKIA56 on his return from W109 is not supported by any other evidence and is contrary to evidence I accept. I have also made some adverse findings about Person 5's credit in Section 12 of this Part and I have taken those findings into account. He also has motives to lie. He was the patrol commander and would wish to resist any findings which would involve him in the killings of EKIA56 and EKIA57. In addition, his present employment is connected with his former role as a special forces soldier and would wish to avoid reputational and financial harm from a finding that soldiers under his command murdered PUCs.
878 Person 29's evidence was unsatisfactory as to whether the tunnel was found during the clearance of the compound or while the SSE process was being undertaken and as to whether he noticed any distinguishing features on the bodies outside W108. His approaches to Persons 14 and 40 referred to in Section 12 of this Part show just how closely he is aligned with the applicant, and even putting to one side whether his approach to Person 40 was appropriate or not, I simply do not accept his evidence that his approach was done without the applicant's knowledge.
