interest as well as conscious consideration of what should have been said or could have been said—is not present in this case. I say that because in the case of Person 19, I do not think that there were any considerations of self-interest. I accept Person 19's evidence that he and Person 10 discussed how and whether they could avoid giving evidence in this case and, to the extent it was suggested in cross-examination that Person 19 had some sort of grudge against the applicant, I reject that suggestion. As the respondents pointed out, there is support for Person 19's evidence about directions as to throwdowns in the evidence of Person 4 who said that at the beginning of the deployment in Afghanistan in 2012, the applicant said that they needed to carry items on their equipment to validate engagements.
924 Thirdly, the applicant points to the fact that the evidence of the applicant, Person 11 and Person 35 is that the alleged discussion did not take place. As I make clear elsewhere in these reasons, I do not accept the evidence of those witnesses. The applicant made a separate point about that part of the discussion which related to the placing of weapons on deceased persons. In addition to the fact that Person 19 could not remember whether the relevant words were said by the applicant or Person 35, the applicant pointed out, as was the case, that Person 19 said that his recollection "is not great of this part". I have considered that, but have reached the conclusion that Person 19 has a genuine recollection that either the applicant or Person 35 said words to the effect that "if someone has been shot, you can put a weapon that you carried into target down and photograph them so that they would be deemed an enemy combatant". However, on any view, Person 19's evidence does not support a finding that those words were said by the applicant and not by Person 35. The Particulars of Truth are to the effect that these words were said by the applicant.
925 I find that at pre-deployment training exercise at Bindoon in May or June 2012, the applicant said in the course of a discussion involving Persons 4, 10, 11, 19, 31, 35 and 56 words to the effect of "any unmanned aerial vehicles would be pushed off station so they weren't observing the target area" and "you will shoot the bad cunts" and that officers would be kept outside the compound until they were ready to receive them and "that's when any people that we suspect of being enemy combatants, we take them into a room and shoot the cunts".
926 I add the following. There were two topics put to Person 19 in cross-examination which were said to raise issues about Person 19's credibility and, in the case of the first matter, a possible motive for Person 19 wishing to give evidence adverse to the applicant. The first matter involved disciplinary action against Person 19 for removing ammunition and other service
