referred to in the articles complained of and nor was a suggestion made by the applicant that it had been "implanted" in Person 24's memory by something someone else had said.
260 The respondents accept that there was a clear challenge in closed Court on 14 April 2022 to Person 24's evidence that Person 5 had said that "we're going to blood the rookie" on a particular basis, but submit that that particular basis was flawed. The respondents submit that the challenge by the applicant to Person 24's evidence was without any basis having regard to the contents of closed Court exhibit A188. I reject the particular challenge made by the applicant in closed Court for the reasons given in the closed Court reasons (at [52]–[54]).
261 The applicant submits that Person 24's evidence about the conversation at the patrol room door is not corroborated. That is correct. Furthermore, they submit that Person 6 who, on Person 24's account was present, was not called to support Person 24's account and, in those circumstances, they ask that an inference be drawn from the fact that Person 6 was not called as a witness by the respondents that his evidence would not have assisted the respondents' case. The applicant also suggested that it is relevant that, albeit in a different context, the respondents acknowledged that their decisions about what witnesses to call were forensic decisions based on the evidentiary case identified in the outlines of evidence. In other words, the respondents made a deliberate and considered decision not to call Person 6. I do not consider that what was said by the respondents' counsel in a different context adds a great deal because it would be assumed anyway in the absence of a suggestion of carelessness or mistake.
262 Assuming for present purposes that Person 6 is in the respondents' "camp" and that there is no explanation for his absence from the witness box, I do not consider that, in any event, a Jones v Dunkel inference has any significant role to play. The fact is that I have direct evidence from Person 24 of the alleged conversation and I must decide whether I accept it.
263 The applicant submits that there is a further reason why Person 24's account of the conversation at the patrol room door should be rejected and that is that there was evidence from Person 5 that he disliked Persons 6, 14 and 24. In those circumstances, the applicant submits that it is inherently unlikely he would have gone to Person 6's patrol room. Person 5 did say that he did not like "any of them", but he did not seem to advance that as a reason he would not go to Person 6's patrol room. I do not consider that this so-called further reason has a basis in the evidence.
