respondents submit that he was not expressly challenged on that evidence. I do not need to pursue this issue because, in any event, I accept Person 14's evidence.
234 In 2009, Person 18 was in the same patrol as Person 4, the applicant and Person 5 and he said in his evidence that it was a running joke, derived from the movie "Super Troopers", between Person 4 and himself that although Person 4 was a good 20 years older than Person 18, he (Person 4) was the "rookie fuck". The respondents submit that he was not expressly challenged on that evidence. I do not need to pursue this issue because, in any event, I accept Person 18's evidence.
235 Person 18 also gave evidence that at a meeting in 2013 involving the Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM) (Person 102), Persons 32, 4 and himself, he was asked by the RSM whether he had heard a rumour about blooding the rookie at W108. The applicant asked me to reject this evidence which he elicited in cross-examination, but I accept Person 18's evidence and I see no reason to reject the evidence.
236 Person 24 gave evidence that shortly prior to the mission to W108, he understood Person 5's reference to the "rookie" to be a reference to Person 4. He considered that as far as Person 5 and the applicant were concerned, Person 4 was the "new guy" who they could influence. The respondents submit that he was not challenged on his understanding that Person 4 was the "rookie". For reasons I will give, Person 24's evidence must be approached with considerable caution. Nevertheless, I accept Person 24's evidence that Person 4 was referred to as the "rookie".
237 The applicant said that he did not challenge the evidence of Persons 14, 18 and 24 that Person 4 was understood by them as a "rookie". He submits that their evidence was of limited probative value because it was their understanding and no more.
238 However, there was other evidence that the junior member in a patrol, or at least in Person 5's patrol, was referred to as the "rookie".
239 First, in 2010, Person 8 had replaced Person 4 as the newest member of Person 5's patrol. A photograph of the patrol room door for Person 5's patrol has a sign identifying the members of the patrol and Person 8 is described on the sign as the "rookie fuck" (R210 open Court exhibit; R200 closed Court exhibit). It is true that this is in 2010, but in my opinion when this evidence is considered with all the evidence in the case, there is a strong body of evidence that the junior
