inference from the fact that the respondents did not ask Person 4 what he was called by Person 5 in 2009. Clearly, that issue is closely related to the issue of the events that occurred at W108 on 12 April 2009. Person 4 claimed the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to events that occurred at W108 on 12 April 2009 and it is reasonable to assume he would have done so in relation to the issue now under consideration. I upheld Person 4's claim to the privilege in relation to a number of questions and would have upheld the claim had the question now under consideration been asked.
245 Counsel for the respondents asked Person 4 what he could recall of the mission to W108 on Easter Sunday in 2009 and at that point Person 4 claimed the privilege against self-incrimination. The offence identified by his counsel was that set out in s 268.70 of the Criminal Code, that is, the war crime of murder. I held that Person 4 had reasonable grounds for the objection within s 128(2) of the Evidence Act. Person 4 was not willing to give the evidence even with the benefit of a certificate under s 128(3) of the Evidence Act and, after addressing the matters in s 128(4) of the Evidence Act, I ruled that I would not require Person 4 to give the evidence.
246 In cross-examination, Person 4 took an objection on the same ground when asked whether he told his psychiatrist that if he was required to give evidence about W108, that could potentially result in him taking his own life. I ruled that I would not require Person 4 to give the evidence. Person 4 was also asked whether he was aware the respondents have alleged in the case that he murdered an unarmed Afghan male on 12 April 2009 and he objected to that question. In the case of that question, I was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the objection and ruled accordingly. Person 4 was asked in cross-examination whether he was anxious that the respondents may put to him their allegation in these proceedings that he unlawfully killed an Afghan male on 12 April 2009 and a question as to whether he would have come to Court to give evidence under the subpoena if he felt he would be in a position where the respondents would inform the Court that he ought to be compelled to answer questions in relation to the allegation that he murdered an unarmed Afghan male in April 2009. Person 4 objected to answering those questions on the basis of self-incrimination. I held that there were reasonable grounds for the objection and that I would not require Person 4 to give that evidence. I overruled an objection by Person 4 to a question about whether he started to have ruminations about W108 on the basis of self-incrimination.
