Okay. So I'm going to go back and ask you this question. You denied to this Court that Person 14 said to you " You denied that, correct?---Yes.
785 Finally, the applicant submits that Person 24's admission that he had lied to the ADF about the true circumstances of an injury he suffered and his continued reliance on that injury to obtain a financial benefit means that he is not a witness of credit. In that respect, the applicant referred to his closed Court submissions at para 34. I have already referred to the relevant parts of the closed Court reasons (at [46]–[66] and, in particular, at [56]).
786 I repeat the conclusions I expressed in the closed Court reasons about Person 24's evidence (at [65]–[66] of the closed Court reasons). His evidence of what he saw involving the killing of EKIA57 is supported by the evidence of Persons 14 and 41 just as that evidence is supported by the evidence of Afghan men coming out of the tunnel.
787 In addition to the submission previously referred to, the applicant made three further submissions as to why the respondents' case should be rejected, or at least found not to have been proved.
788 First, the applicant submits that the respondents have not advanced or established a motive for the applicant's actions as alleged by them. It could not be that Person 5 ordered the applicant to direct Person 4 to execute a PUC as that allegation has not been established on the evidence. None of the witnesses suggested that the applicant wished to "blood" Person 4 on that mission. The absence of any established motive for the murders is a factor that points to the unlikelihood that any such murders occurred. As I have said previously, the absence of a proved motive is not a proved absence of motive. There is no requirement on the respondents to prove a motive. Furthermore, I have already indicated the finding I make as to the involvement of Person 5. The applicant submits that the findings sought by the respondents in relation to EKIA56 was that this person was executed by Person 4 in the tunnel courtyard at the direction of the applicant, but not at the direction of Person 5. This is true, but if it is intended by this statement to exclude any involvement by Person 5, then I do not accept it and again, I refer to my findings as to the involvement of Person 5.
789 Secondly, the applicant noted that Person 4 objected to answering questions about the mission to W108 pursuant to s 128(1) of the Evidence Act and submits that he would otherwise have been in a position to give the best evidence about the circumstances of the engagement. The applicant accepts that no Jones v Dunkel inference may be drawn by the Court against the respondents in respect of Person 4's failure to give evidence on the basis that the Court may be
