out of menial tasks such as receiving items ferried out of a tunnel. I prefer the evidence of Person 18 on this matter.
518 The respondents submit that the applicant, Persons 5, 29, 35 and 38 are very close friends, have a range of shared interests giving them a powerful motive to lie and have engaged in a course of sustained communications designed to arrive at a common narrative concealing the commission of crimes. The reasons I do not accept them as honest and reliable witnesses are addressed later in this Section.
519 The applicant put forward a number of reasons in closed Court as to why I should find that there were no men in the tunnel. Those submissions and the reasons I reject them are set out in the closed Court reasons (at [45]).
520 I return then to the evidence of the respondents' witnesses.
521 Person 40 was asked a number of questions in cross-examination and various matters were put to him. He agreed that he disliked Person 29 and had a poor relationship with him. He ceased being 2IC of Person 29's patrol. He disagreed that he had been removed for poor performance and he considered that Person 29 had treated him unfairly. He was questioned about his recollection concerning the events at W108 and there were gaps in his recollection. He agreed that he had heard rumours that the man with the prosthetic leg had been unlawfully killed. However, none of the matters put to him caused me to doubt his honesty or reliability.
522 I mention these matters because I have considered Person 40's evidence irrespective of whether his honesty was conceded by the applicant. His evidence must be considered in light of the fact that it was given some 13 years after the relevant events. That is an important matter, but is not one that causes me to doubt the honesty or reliability of his evidence. The existence of rumours must also be considered, but I did not detect any link between rumours and Person 40's recollection. His evidence must be considered in light of other evidence advanced by the respondents of the relevant events about which he gave evidence. Persons 18, 40, 41, 42 and 43 saw different things. For example, Person 43 saw one man come out of the tunnel, whereas Person 42 saw at least two and potentially three men come out of the tunnel. I have considered these differences. The fact is that there were a number of people in the area, they were in a highly tense situation attending to different tasks and they saw different things. None of the differences persuade me that Person 40's account should be rejected.
