and that was at his request. He told Person 66 that he was going back to the IGADF, but he did not tell Person 66 what he was going to say. His belief was that Person 66 said that he was going back for another interview with the IGADF Inquiry as well. He said that Person 66 was worried. Person 66 was called as a witness by the respondents in relation to events on the mission to Syahchow and I refer to my reasons in relation to that mission. Person 41 admitted in the course of his cross-examination that he had raised with others issues he had with his 2IC, Person 40, and with respect to the commanding officer.
729 Person 41 agreed in cross-examination that nobody told him about the unwritten rule he had referred to in his evidence. He gave a further explanation as to why he did not report the incident he witnessed which was as follows:
It was just a general knowledge, being a new trooper on the deployment, and toe the line, as you say. Back then, I was afraid that if I had had brought it up and mentioned it, I would have been seen as someone who wasn't willing to conduct the tasks of SAS trooper, and the fear with that was possibly being unsuitable to be operating within that troop, possible removal from my patrol and given a – a mundane job, for example, looking after possibly the Afghan nationals or even sent back to HQ, or, worse case, deemed just unsuitable to be a SAS soldier and possibly sent back to Australia. Word would have gotten back before I had have gotten back if I had have made anything about the events and possibly just bounced around back in Perth at the barracks with everyone knowing what you dobbed in, so to speak, not wanting to work with you, and effectively the career you had worked sort of so hard for could possibly be over just like that.
730 In re-examination, Person 41 was asked why he was prepared to make a complaint about his 2IC and about the commanding officer, but not make a complaint about what he observed at W108. He said the following:
The reason I didn't make a complaint about Whisky 108 is because I wanted to keep my job, and I was afraid what would possibly happen to me if I was seen to be the bloke who was speaking out about incidents and not playing the team game.
731 I accept this explanation. To my mind, it is entirely plausible. There is no evidence of any involvement or threat to Person 41 which explains the fabrication by him of an extremely controversial and likely to be highly contentious account of two executions and furthermore, implicit in the account is an acknowledgement of his own failure to report at the time what he had seen.
732 The respondents submit that the most powerful argument in favour of the credibility of Person 41's evidence with respect to the killing of EKIA57 is its consistency with the evidence of Persons 14 and 24. The respondents submit that there was no suggestion of collusion between the evidence of Persons 14 and 24 on the one hand, and Person 41 on the other. They
