true that he agreed that it was very likely that somebody would have been required to guard the compound at that point. In relation to that, I make some allowance for the fact that the applicant's recollection may be poor.
843 The applicant's evidence about whether a radio call reporting the engagements was made was vague and unconvincing.
844 The applicant's evidence about when he first noticed the prosthetic leg on EKIA57 was unclear. In his evidence-in-chief, he said that his initial search of EKIA57 was a quick search and he did not notice anything about his leg. A little later in his evidence-in-chief, he said that he discovered that EKIA57 had a prosthetic leg at some point after he had gone back into the compound to help with the SSE process and they had come outside to carry out the process on the bodies. He said that at that point, he identified EKIA57 as having a prosthetic leg. In cross-examination, he said that when he did his initial search, he could see there was a prosthetic leg. He qualified that immediately by saying that he did not remember whether he saw it then or whether he saw it when he was involved in the SSE process. Later in his cross-examination, it was put to him that there was an inconsistency in his evidence-in-chief and the cross-examination. In his evidence-in-chief, he had been quite clear that he did not discover the prosthetic leg on the initial search, but did so during the SSE process. In his earlier cross-examination, he said that he could not remember whether it was upon the initial search or at the SSE process that he discovered that EKIA57 had a prosthetic leg. I found some of the applicant's evidence on this topic in cross-examination to be unconvincing. The respondents make the further point that the applicant's evidence in relation to the removal of the prosthetic leg to search for explosives was inconsistent. In his evidence-in-chief, the applicant suggested that it was his idea to take the prosthetic leg off the insurgent. Under cross-examination, the applicant said that Person 5 had spoken to him about hiding explosives within the leg and "that's why it came off". Then, later in cross-examination, he said that he could recall at the end of the SSE process, Person 5 telling him that he should be checking the leg. It appears that until Person 5 spoke to him, it had not occurred to him to remove the leg. Again, I found some of the applicant's evidence on this topic in cross-examination to be unconvincing.
845 The accounts of the applicant's other witnesses must also be considered in assessing the applicant's account.
846 Person 5 said that he was at the Commanders' RV meeting and they were discussing the munitions which had been found at W108 and a plan for W109. A plan was being formulated
