not appear to be a drill or standard operating procedure requiring the body to be immediately cleared. Secondly, the immediate danger must have been considerable. Two insurgents had just appeared and it was not known whether there were others in the immediate vicinity. Thirdly, not only was the applicant exposing himself to danger in retrieving the body, but also he was not fully protected in the position to which he dragged the body. Fourthly, if the matter of clearing the body was of concern to the applicant, then it is difficult to understand why the applicant did not clear the body of EKIA56 or suggest to the second SASR operator that he do so. Finally, it is even more improbable that the applicant would go out a second time, as he said he did, to retrieve the rifle EKIA57 was carrying. If his concern was with a rifle lying around, he would have retrieved that before the body.
836 The respondents submit that the photographs of the body of EKIA57 (exhibit R7) do not suggest that it has been dragged. The area the applicant marked as showing drag marks suggesting the body had been moved from the right of the page to the centre of the page do not appear to be drag marks when p 5 of exhibit R7 is compared with p 6. On the respondents' analysis of the photographs (exhibit R7) and the transcript, the drag marks postulated by the applicant would suggest that the body was dragged away from the compound, not towards it as the applicant contends. I have considered the photographs carefully. I am not disposed to draw any firm conclusions from them.
837 During the SSE process, it was recorded that EKIA57 was found in the NE corner W108 "5 metres from doorway" and the applicant himself said in cross-examination that the body of EKIA57 was "[p]erhaps two metres" from the compound wall. That is close to the compound. Whilst it is possible that insurgents would be very close to the compound, the respondents submit that a story invented about the engagements would be more plausible if the insurgents engaged were further out from the compound. In light of the location of EKIA57 when it was photographed, that could be achieved by saying that the body had been dragged back in. It seems to me that that is a possible explanation for a matter otherwise established. In a similar category is the point made by the respondents that the change of evidence overnight was not the result of an altered recollection, but an appreciation by the applicant that the photographic evidence strongly suggested that the body of EKIA56 had not been moved after the person had been shot.
838 The respondents submit that the applicant's evidence about the weapons carried by EKIA56 and EKIA57 should be rejected having regard to Person 18's evidence that those weapons were
