is also consistent with the evidence of Person 41. There is no suggestion of friendship, let alone collusion, between Person 24 and Person 41.
779 The respondents make a similar submission in relation to the evidence of Person 24 as they made in relation to the evidence of Persons 14, 40 and 41. That submission is that, although the account of those witnesses as to what occurred outside the compound was challenged, the applicant's version of the two engagements was never put to them by the applicant's counsel. The respondents submit that that meant that Person 24, like the other witnesses, was deprived of the opportunity to give a detailed explanation of why that account could not have occurred. They submit that the Court should infer that the applicant feared what Person 24 would have been able to say. The respondents put their case in the following way. The applicant's account of the two engagements outside the north-western corner of W108 should not be accepted over the respective accounts of Persons 14, 40, 41 and 24 because the applicant did not put his account to those witnesses. The only question is whether the evidence of Persons 14, 40, 41 and 24 is capable of discharging the onus of proof. I provide the same response to the submission in the case of Person 24 as I did in the case of Person 14.
780 With respect to the evidence of Person 24, the applicant submits that he should not be accepted as a witness of credit.
781 There were a number of attacks on Person 24's honesty and reliability in closed Court. I refer to the closed Court reasons (at [44]–[66]).
782 The applicant submits that Person 24's evidence of what was said about the blooding and execution of the PUC in the patrol room after the mission to W108 should not be accepted. The applicant submits that it is inherently unlikely that a patrol commander, informed of serious allegations of the kind that Person 24 suggested were discussed at the Patrol Debrief, would not raise these allegations with the chain of command. The applicant also relied on the fact that the letter prepared by Person 6 in 2013 complaining about the applicant's conduct in 2012 makes no reference to possible misconduct by him in 2009. The applicant submits that even though the letter is directed to the applicant's conduct during the period from June to November 2012, it was clear that Person 6 had a dislike for the applicant and, in those circumstances, would have taken the opportunity of attacking his reputation by referring to allegations of war crimes in the letter.
