Section 12 of this Part. As I will explain, I do not accept the applicant and Persons 5, 29, 35 and 38 as honest and reliable witnesses.
References to Person 4 as the "Rookie", "to Blooding the Rookie" and Events on a Prior Mission
227 Rotation 9 was for the period from approximately March to July 2009. The respondents' Particulars are to the effect that at various times throughout Rotation 9, Person 5 and the applicant made statements, in substance, that they needed to "blood the rookie" referring to Person 4 and that "blooding" refers to initiating a person in the practice of killing, or giving them the taste for killing (Particulars (43)–(44)).
228 In the circumstances of this case, this issue gives rise to a number of sub-issues. Those sub-issues are as follows: (1) whether Person 4 was referred to as the "rookie"; (2) whether Person 5, the applicant and perhaps others spoke of "blooding the rookie"; and (3) whether Person 4 had already been responsible for killing an insurgent or being involved in the killing of an insurgent prior to the mission to W108 and, therefore, the blooding allegation made by the respondents should be rejected.
229 The respondents link the "blooding the rookie" allegation with the murder of EKIA56 because they allege that Person 4 was ordered to shoot EKIA56 so that he could be "blooded". Although the respondents pressed this part of their case with force, they submit in the alternative, that even if it is not established, it is not fatal to their case because there is no obligation on them to prove a motive or reason for the killing of EKIA56. This submission is correct.
230 For his part, the applicant submits that the "blooding the rookie" allegation is an intermediate fact which is a legally indispensable step upon the way to an inference of guilt (Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573).
231 Motive, in the circumstances of this case, is not a legally indispensable step. This "fact" may be contrasted with the "fact" that two men were taken from the tunnel which the respondents accept is central to their case.
232 Person 4 was the newest member of Person 5's patrol in 2009. His first deployment to Afghanistan as an SASR trooper was in 2009.
233 Person 14 said in his evidence that in early 2009, his understanding of the term "rookie" was a junior trooper who was very new to the squadron or troop, if not on their first deployment. Person 14 said that his understanding was that the "rookie" in 2009 was Person 4. The
