252 It is relevant in assessing this evidence, although not decisive, that as the respondents point out, the challenge by the applicant in cross-examination to this aspect of Person 14's evidence was not that Person 5 never said that he was going to "blood the rookie", but that "blooding" could mean a lawful killing of the enemy in action and that, in fact, Person 14 agreed that Person 5 has never said that the rookie would be asked to undertake an unlawful killing.
253 Person 5, although denying that he had used the expression "blood the rookie" in 2009, said that the term "blooding" has been used for centuries in the military to mean a first kill in battle or action.
254 The applicant submits that I should not accept Person 14's evidence about what Person 5 said. He pointed to the fact that the evidence of Person 14 was not corroborated by Person 24 who was said by Person 14 to be a party to the conversation.
255 I agree that I should take into account the fact that another party to the conversation, according to Person 14, that is to say, Person 24, did not give evidence of the conversation.
256 The applicant also relies on the absence of corroboration of Person 14's evidence from other persons who were in the room according to Person 14, being Persons 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 18, 24, 27, 29, 68 and 73. I have already referred to Persons 5 and 24. Person 3 did not give evidence in the case and, in that sense, he did not corroborate Person 14's account. The others were in the room, but not party to the conversation and the absence of evidence from them is immaterial.
257 I find that the conversation described by Person 14 took place. I accept Person 14's evidence. I do not accept Person 5's evidence.
258 Person 24 gave evidence that about one week before the mission to W108, Person 5 came to Person 6's patrol room at Tarin Kowt when he, Person 6 and others were present and said that "we" are going to "blood the rookie". Person 24's understanding at that time was that that meant to get Person 4 in a position where he could get a kill under his own name.
259 The challenges to this evidence by the applicant in his cross-examination of Person 24 ranged from no challenge to the words used, but a challenge to Person 24's understanding of their meaning (based on what he read, particularly that the words meant an unlawful killing, whereas previously he would have understood them to mean to kill someone lawfully) to a suggestion that he might have imagined the making of the statement. However, as to the latter suggestion, there is no obvious basis for it as the interaction at the doorway of the patrol room was not
