224 I will proceed by describing the relevant events at W108 in chronological order. I will make findings in the course of doing that. Of course, in making findings, earlier or later or subsequent events may be relevant and where they are, must be taken into account. In other words, findings are made having regard to (where relevant) the whole sequence of events of which they form a part.
225 The key witnesses for the respondents in relation to events at W108 are Persons 41, 40, 42, 43, 18, 14 and 24. The applicant makes a clear challenge to the honesty and reliability of Persons 14 and 24. He suggested to both of them in cross-examination that they were lying and referred to them in closing submissions as "liars", "perjurers" and "discredited witnesses". The applicant challenged the evidence of Persons 41, 40, 42, 43 and 18, but it was less clear whether that was done on the basis of both honesty and reliability or reliability alone. The matter was the subject of submissions, but I will proceed by considering the nature of the challenges as formulated, rather than engaging in a process of characterisation (i.e., does the challenge relate to honesty or reliability or both) and then dealing with the matter in light of that characterisation. That seems to me to be the appropriate course in light of the seriousness of the allegations. Some of the respondents' witnesses are also witnesses in relation to other missions and events. For example, Person 14 is the respondents' key witness in relation to events at Chinartu and Person 18 is an important witness in relation to the threatening letters. In assessing the credit of a witness, it is necessary to have regard to the whole of the witness' evidence while at the same time recognising that the witness may be correct as to one matter and mistaken as to another, or truthful as to one matter and dishonest as to another. As will be seen, I accept the evidence of Persons 41, 40, 42, 43 and 18. As I will explain, there are reasons to scrutinise Person 14's evidence with care, but having done that, I accept his evidence. Person 24's evidence must be approached with considerable caution, but it does not stand alone and is supported by the evidence of Persons 14 and 41.
226 The key witnesses for the applicant in relation to events at W108 are the applicant and Persons 5, 29, 35 and 38. As with the respondents' witnesses, some of these witnesses gave evidence in relation to other missions or events. The applicant is the obvious example. Person 35 gave evidence in relation to the Person 12 lie. In assessing credit, all of the witness' evidence must be taken into account in the same way and subject to the same qualifications as I have indicated in relation to the respondents' witnesses. In addition, in the case of the applicant and Persons 5, 29 and 35, I take into account the adverse credit findings set out in
