Page:Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) (2023, FCA).pdf/259

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

1020 It is to be noted at this point that Mohammed Hanifa who was in front of the guesthouse gave evidence that he saw soldiers going through the houses and they also came from Haji Muhammad Gul's "house side". He could see the soldiers on the rooftops.

The Applicant's Patrol moves across the Gap into the Southern Set of Compounds

1021 Subject to what I have said about the issues concerning the engagement at the Helmand River, there is no significant dispute between the parties as to the events which occurred up until approximately this point. It is at approximately this point that the first major issue in dispute arises and that is whether the interpreter accompanied the applicant's patrol throughout the remaining clearance down to Mangul Rahmi's compound, or was at about this time, sent back to Troop Bravo accompanied by Person 56 following an order from Troop Bravo to the applicant to return the interpreter. The significance of the presence or otherwise of the interpreter arises because of the evidence of the respondents' witnesses and, in particular, the Afghan witnesses.

1022 The applicant said that during the clearance of the middle set of compounds, he can recall having an interpreter with his patrol in order to talk to local women and children. The applicant said that they rolled into the last building of that compound set and at that point he received a call from Troop Bravo saying that they wanted the interpreter back at the PUC holding area. The applicant gave orders to Person 56 to take the interpreter back to Troop Bravo because interpreters are unarmed and need to be protected. The applicant was irritated because he had only a four man patrol at that point because the dog handler himself was mixing in with the other teams. The applicant said that once they are not required on something like a block, dog handlers could and would float between teams wherever they are needed. He described Person 47 as "doing his own thing at that point". The applicant was unhappy that he only had three soldiers and there was a large gap between their position and the "last compound sets". The applicant's patrol crossed the gap and got to the last group of compounds which the applicant described as "reasonably run down". The compounds were on a very steep part of the terrain and he said that some of the compounds did not have buildings in them. They were just a compound fence with nothing inside. That was relevant because when that was the case, the clearance team did not need to go up and clear it. If the clearance team could see inside and there is no building, then there is no need to clear.

1023 At the point at which the applicant's patrol moved into the last set of compounds, that is the southern set of compounds, his patrol consisted of himself, Person 4 and Person 11.


Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555
249