264 In addition to his evidence about the use of the term "rookie", Person 19 gave evidence that he had heard Person 5 use the term "blooding" and the respondents contend that the applicant did not expressly challenge that evidence. Person 19's understanding of the word was that it meant an unlawful killing, "the fortitude to shoot – to shoot a prisoner if required". I accept Person 19's evidence that he had heard Person 5 use the term "blooding". I do not accept the applicant's submission that the evidence has no probative value because Person 19 could not remember where and when he heard Person 5 use the term. However, the probative value of the evidence is limited because of those circumstances.
265 As I will indicate later in these reasons, I find that Person 5 mentioned having "blooded the rookie" after the mission to W108. This provides further support for the finding, which I make, that Person 5 made comments to the effect that he or we were going to "blood the rookie" before the mission to W108. Those were the comments made by Person 5 as related by Person 14, the comments made by Person 5 as related by Person 24 and supported by Person 19's evidence that he had heard Person 5 use the term "blooding".
266 Although 2009 was Person 4's first deployment to Afghanistan with the SASR, he went on a mission during the deployment before he went on the mission to W108. This mission involved the pursuit of a high-value target known as Objective Depth-Charger in the Mirabad Valley. The oral evidence establishes that the mission was shortly before the mission to W108. A closed Court exhibit (A10 Tab 6) appears to establish a more precise date for the mission.
267 The significance of the mission to the Mirabad Valley is said to be that Person 4 was "involved" in an engagement and during the mission, Objective Depth-Charger was killed. Depending on the extent of Person 4's involvement and the circumstances, it might be said that there was no longer a need to blood Person 4. The issue is not necessarily one of objective fact and may involve perceptions and, in particular, the perception of Person 5 and other soldiers.
268 The applicant's case about the mission is to the effect that whether Objective Depth-Charger was killed by Person 4 alone or by a combination of rounds from more than one SASR soldier is beside the point, because, "blooding" according to the respondents' Particulars of Truth (at para (44)) "refers to initiating a person in the practice of killing, or giving them the taste for killing". The applicant submits that the definition of "blooding" propounded by the respondents "eschews any requirement that the initiate take sole and unambiguous credit for the kill". "Blooding" had undoubtedly occurred in the case of Person 4 and even if there was
