This statement refers to a member of the applicant's patrol allegedly encouraging a more junior trooper to execute a detainee. As I read the article, this is one of the four occasions referred to in para 41 upon which four defence insiders alleged that they observed patrols under the applicant's direct or deputy leadership, severely mistreat unarmed Afghans.
81 Earlier in the article, there is reference to the applicant's involvement in small SAS teams suspected of the abuse of unarmed civilians and the use of force that goes well beyond what is acceptable in the theatre of war. In para 23, the applicant is identified as a key player in the patrols under scrutiny, either as a deputy or lead patrol commander and para 24 refers to the patrol's treatment of detainees or unarmed Afghans, including acts of brutality. In para 38, there is a reference to the fact that the applicant was deputy commander of a small SAS patrol during his deployments to Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010.
82 The applicant submits that these paragraphs in combination support the conclusion that the ordinary reasonable reader would conclude that, in view of his leadership position, the applicant must have authorised the junior trooper in his patrol to act in the manner referred to in Imputation 9. I have difficulty in accepting this submission and I do not consider that the relevant material rises to the level of "authorised". However, I do consider that it rises to the level of "acquiesced in". The question then becomes whether the applicant should be permitted to rely on Imputation 9 reformulated in this way.
83 As I have said, the applicant relies on the decision in Stead at [27]–[31] per Lee J.
84 The imputation as reformulated is not more serious than the pleaded imputation and it is not substantially different from the pleaded imputation. To the extent fairness is relevant in these circumstances, I do not consider there to be any unfairness to the respondents in allowing the applicant to rely on the reformulated imputation. As will become clear later in these reasons, the respondents have advanced a detailed and full case as to what happened on the mission to Whiskey 108 and the other missions referred to in its Particulars of Truth.
85 Imputation 9 as reformulated is conveyed or communicated by the Group 3 articles.
86 On the face of it, there is force in the respondents' submission with respect to Imputations 7 and 8. However, it is negated, or substantially negated, when regard is had to the following matters. First, the reference to the woman drinking at the event is linked to the applicant's state of mind at and immediately after the event. In para 111, it is said that the applicant appeared angry at the woman's behaviour because he was worried it would expose his affair to the
