member or an interpreter was present. Person 38 could not recall any Afghan Partner members. Person 41 did not refer to ANA members or Afghan Partner members. I do not accept Person 5's evidence. I consider it more likely that Person 81 is correct on this issue. Furthermore, I do not accept Person 5 as an honest and reliable witness.
405 Person 5 said that Person 18 was with him at the time he was called back by the Afghan Partner member. Person 18 gave evidence that he went into the tunnel courtyard following a radio call to the effect that a tunnel had been found. The applicant did not put to Person 18 that he was with Person 5 at the time Person 5 was called back by the Afghan Partner member. I prefer the evidence of Person 18 on this point. Person 18 was an honest and reliable witness and there is no reason to think he is mistaken about this evidence.
406 Person 5 gave evidence that at the point at which the tunnel was discovered, the applicant and Persons 29 and 35 ran over. The respondents submit that it may be accepted that those witnesses were present, but the Court would not conclude from this evidence that Persons 40, 41, 42 and 43 were not present.
407 Person 5 said that after Person 35 said the tunnel was clear, he advised Person 81 that the compound was secure. I do not accept this evidence because I find that the tunnel was found after the compound had been declared secure and the SSE process had commenced.
408 Person 29 in his evidence disagreed with the proposition that the tunnel was found after the SSE process had commenced. However, the following statement appears in the outline of evidence approved by Person 29:
22. While conducting a sensitive site exploitation (SSE), we located a large cache of rockets. We also located a tunnel in the northern part of the compound towards the northern wall. …
409 When asked about this statement, Person 29 said that he probably should have proof-read and communicated with the applicant's counsel "a bit better about this outline of evidence". He denied that he had deliberately changed his evidence so that it aligned with the evidence of the applicant's other witnesses. Prior to his explanation in relation to this alleged inconsistency, Person 29 had said in his evidence that he had approved his outline of evidence and he did not at that time suggest that he had not carefully considered the outline of evidence. The respondents submit that Person 29's oral evidence should be seen as a transparent attempt to undermine the evidence of eyewitnesses giving evidence unfavourable to the applicant, that is
