132 The parties were not given access to the transcripts of the witnesses at that point. However, there were applications for access to the transcripts of witnesses during the course of the trial and that access was granted upon proper grounds being shown. Access to the transcripts of the Afghan witnesses who were in Darwan in 2012 and Persons 24 and 27 was granted and, in part, to the transcripts of Persons 5, 11, 29 and 35.
133 The applicant has had access to an unredacted copy of the PAP Notice and he has had a summary of the evidence of the witnesses. Both parties have been able, if so advised, to make an application for access to the transcripts of the witnesses who have been interviewed by the IGADF Inquiry.
134 The applicant refers, in particular, to the lack of access to the transcript of the evidence of Person 41. The applicant made a submission that Person 41's evidence about lending his suppressor is incredible. They refer to the fact that he did not say anything about witnessing two executions at W108 until 2019. The applicant submits that he did not know what triggered Person 41's recollection, or whether it was something he raised, or whether it was something suggested to him, or whether he was shown something. The applicant also submits that neither he nor the Court has the material concerning Person 41's first interview by the IGADF.
135 The respondents made two submissions in response, both of which, in my view, are correct. First, if the applicant was concerned to find out what had triggered Person 41's recollection and that related to something outside the IGADF process, then the applicant could have asked Person 41. Secondly, the respondents point to the fact that at no time did the applicant make an application for access to the transcript of evidence of Person 41. He could have done that.
2. The notes of the journalists
136 The applicant submitted that the individual respondents may have a "treasure trove of documents" which indicate that some of the witnesses have said something different before their evidence in Court. In that context, he referred to the fact that there was no prosecutorial duty of disclosure. He pointed to what had occurred with respect to Person 14 who he described in his closing oral submissions as a perjurer and a straight out liar and perjurer. In Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 2, I upheld the respondents' claim for journalist privilege under s 126K of the Evidence Act with respect to notes of the individual respondents. In the course of my reasons, I said the following (at [55]):
Before leaving this summary of the applicant's submissions, I should mention a matter counsel for the applicant raised at the outset of his submissions. It is a matter which
