Page:Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) (2023, FCA).pdf/181

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

EKIA56 and EKIA57 as squirters who were engaged while attempting to squirt during the clearance of W108. Those matters as to the contents of the reports are correct. However, they are likely based on information provided by Person 5 and the applicant, both of whom were aware of what, in fact, had happened.

684 Thirdly, the applicant submits that Person 41's account of the execution of EKIA57 contradicts Person 14's account and the account of Person 24. Under cross-examination, Person 41 said he did not see the applicant carry an Afghan male. He saw the applicant holding onto an Afghan male. He was holding the male with one hand and holding the weapon in his other hand. By contrast, Persons 14 and 24 said that the applicant was carrying the Afghan male with one arm while carrying his Minimi in the other. Furthermore, neither Person 14 nor Person 24 corroborated the alleged conversation between the applicant and Person 41 following the alleged execution. These are differences which must be taken into account, but in my view they are not fatal to an acceptance of Person 41's evidence. I will return to these differences when addressing the alleged execution of EKIA57.

685 Fourthly, the applicant submits that Person 41's evidence about the borrowing of his suppressor is not credible. It is necessary to examine what a suppressor does and when it is used.

686 Person 5 said that a suppressor quietens the round coming out of the end of a gun and that it is exactly the same thing as a silencer. The applicant said that there was a difference with the suppressor being designed to suppress the noise and flash of the weapon to which it is attached to make it "more low-signature when you're in battle". Person 41 said that unlike a silencer, a suppressor will not make a weapon completely silent. A suppressor will reduce the noise and the muzzle flash. Person 14 said that a suppressor reduces the noise of a weapon when fired, but does not remove it altogether. I accept the evidence of Persons 41 and 14.

687 Person 5 said that in 2009, there was a standard operating procedure in relation to carrying a suppressor with an M4 rifle and that that standard operating procedure, which he enforced within his patrol, was that suppressors were not required to be fitted to a weapon during the day, but were required to be used at night. It was put to Person 5 that if Person 4 only intended to fire one shot from his rifle, it would have been an easier and quicker process simply to borrow the suppressor of a nearby operator whose suppressor was actually fitted to his rifle at the time. In response, Person 5 said that in the alternative, Person 4 could have asked someone to go into his pack and pull it out for him which would have been just as fast.


Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555
171