Mr Roberts-Smith; correct?---That is not correct, your Honour.
When is the last time you looked at your outline?---It would have been most probably in 2019 when I initially gave it.
And how do you explain the fact, on your evidence, that something you had a recollection of in 2019 is something about which you have no recollection today?---The fact it was two years ago. And the fact that memory isn't robust. And I may have recalled – you know, not forgetting that this recollection in my statement of – outline of evidence is from an event that occurred, in 2019, that was 10 years prior. And now we're a further, you know, three years after that. I'm not saying that my memory is infallible, Mr Owens.
No. And you would accept, wouldn't you, if nothing else, that your memory in July 2019 of the events at Whisky 108 would be likely to be better than your memory today?---That is correct. Well, you could reasonably make that assumption. Yes.
340 I do not accept Person 29's evidence that he did not recall any distinguishing features of the body identified by the letter "F" on exhibit A219. I find that he falsely invented that evidence for the reason put to him in cross-examination, that is, it posed a problem for the applicant's case in terms of the location of the body of EKIA56. That problem was that the statement in his outline of evidence that he saw the body of the man with the prosthetic leg outside the compound coupled with evidence that the other body was that of EKIA50 supports the notion that the body of EKIA56 was somewhere else, whereas his evidence at trial leaves open the possibility the body he saw in addition to seeing the body of EKIA50, could have been the body of either EKIA56 or EKIA57.
341 The respondents submit that I can have further confidence in the evidence they have adduced as to the location of Person 6's patrol by reason of the fact that the applicant and some of his witnesses have colluded to give false evidence concerning the entry point into W108. They identified an entry point at the southern end of the compound in order to make it more likely that Person 6's cordon was at the southern end of the compound. If that were so, it would follow that Person 14 was not in the location he said he was in and it would mean that neither he nor Person 24 was in a position to see the alleged execution of the Afghan male with the prosthetic leg by the applicant.
342 The respondents' allegations of collusion between the applicant and some of his witnesses are dealt with in Section 12 of this Part. One matter of alleged collusion between the applicant and some of his witnesses concerns the entry point into W108 by the assault or clearance patrols. This is a convenient point to set out the key features of that particular matter of alleged collusion.
