An SAS soldier says Ben Roberts-Smith’s attorneys filed his define of proof realizing it might have implicated the fallacious Afghan soldier in what has change into a key difficulty within the defamation trial.
The serving elite soldier codenamed Particular person 27 giving proof on behalf of his good pal within the Federal Courtroom on Tuesday was questioned about an October 2012 mission to Khaz Oruzgan.
It’s alleged on that mission the Victoria Cross recipient ordered an Afghan accomplice drive soldier dubbed Particular person 12 – by way of an interpreter – to execute a prisoner.
However 5 of the battle veteran’s witnesses have lodged statements saying Particular person 12 was faraway from his troop in July 2012, after a bullet he shot at a canine ricocheted and hit an Australian soldier, often known as Particular person 57.
If Particular person 12 was faraway from all deployments in July, he couldn’t have been current when the previous SAS corporal is accused of ordering the homicide.
Nicholas Owens SC on behalf of the newspapers on Tuesday requested the witness who the primary individual was to counsel to him that Particular person 12 shot the canine.
“Ben’s attorneys,” he answered.
“When the chance was raised Particular person 12 shot the canine what did you say?”
“I dunno who any of those persons are however I can discover out who did it,” he recalled saying.
He stated the define of proof was born out of a verbal teleconference “after which it got here again to me in writing, and I stated ‘I am undecided about that'”.
He stated he needed to verify with Particular person 57 as a result of he was not current on the time and had by no means met Particular person 12.
Mr Roberts-Smith is suing for defamation The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald over stories claiming he dedicated battle crimes in Afghanistan together with homicide, and acts of bullying and home violence.
The 43-year-old denies all claims of wrongdoing, whereas the mastheads are defending them as true.
On Monday Particular person 27 stated he subsequently spoke with the Australian soldier who was injured – Particular person 57.
“Who was the Waka who shot the canine that ricocheted and hit you within the ass,” he recalled asking his pal.
“He stated it is not the bloke who everybody thinks it’s, it is the pudgy Waka,” Particular person 27 stated to him.
Waka is brief for the Wakunish particular forces the SAS partnered with.
“I used to be pretty naive considering that define of proof was simply an overview … I believed it needed to be signed,” Particular person 27 stated.
“I did not give it a lot thought after 2019.”
Someday later he spoke to Mr Roberts-Smith and advised him to talk to Particular person 57 if he had any questions, he stated.
Mr Owens earlier accused Mr Roberts-Smith’s witnesses of colluding on this important piece of proof to concoct a narrative to position Particular person 12 distant from the scene of the crime.
One other of Mr Roberts-Smith’s buddies anonymised as Particular person 35 who accused Particular person 12 of taking pictures the Australian soldier, stated he should have “remembered incorrectly”.
The trial continues.
Lifeline 13 11 14
Open Arms 1800 011 046
