A former SAS patrol commander has informed the federal courtroom that no individuals have been discovered hiding inside a tunnel throughout a 2009 SAS raid on an Afghan compound known as Whiskey 108, opposite to proof beforehand given by a number of soldier witnesses who have been on the mission.
The retired soldier, anonymised earlier than the courtroom as Individual 5, gave proof on Tuesday that two males shot useless in the course of the operation have been famous by troops on the operation as “EKIA” – enemy killed in motion – legitimately engaged and lawfully killed.
The Whiskey 108 operation, on 12 April 2009, has emerged as a key contest within the defamation trial introduced by Victoria Cross winner Roberts-Smith, with the respondent newspapers alleging two prisoners have been executed by Australian troops in the course of the mission.
Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross, is suing the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Occasions for defamation over a collection of experiences he alleges are defamatory and painting him as committingwar crimes, together with homicide.
The newspapers are pleading a defence of fact. Roberts-Smith denies any wrongdoing.
The newspapers allege of their defence that that two males – one aged, the opposite a disabled man with a prosthetic leg – have been pulled from a hidden tunnel discovered contained in the compound.
The defence alleges the aged man was executed by one other soldier on Individual 5’s orders, whereas the disabled man was allegedly executed by Roberts-Smith.
The testimony of Individual 5 contradicts these claims.
Individual 5 is the primary witness-in-reply known as by Roberts-Smith. He stated on Tuesday he regards Roberts-Smith as a succesful soldier and a “superb good friend”.
He was Roberts-Smith’s patrol commander on the Whiskey 108 mission in April 2009, when SAS troops have been despatched in to clear the compound within the village of Kakarak, believed to be an rebel redoubt and weapons base.
Individual 5 stated he was within the compound when the key tunnel was discovered hidden beneath lengthy reduce grass and a grate. One other smaller Australian soldier eliminated his physique armour and carried his pistol into the tunnel to “clear” it, he stated.
“He was in there not more than a few minutes. He then got here again, caught his head out and stated it was clear,” Individual 5 informed the courtroom.
Individual 5 stated that later, as SAS troops labored to safe the compound, “I heard gunshots exterior the compound”.
“I ran out of the compound … in the direction of the place the gunshots have been coming from.”
He stated he reached the skin of the compound in about 15 seconds, the place he might see Roberts-Smith and one other soldier, Individual 4, off the north-west nook of the compound. Individual 5 stated Roberts-Smith informed him “we simply engaged two squirters to the north”.
“Squirter” was a time period utilized by Australian troops to explain rebel enemies who tried to flee as Australian troops approached.
Individual 5 informed the courtroom he requested Roberts-Smith Smith: “Are they EKIA (enemy killed in motion)? And he stated ‘sure’.”
Individual 5 stated he knowledgeable the troop commander of “two EKIA off the north-west nook of the compound”.
Individual 5’s proof accords with that of Roberts-Smith. In his proof, Roberts-Smith informed the courtroom that there have been “no individuals within the tunnel at Whiskey 108”, and that two males killed in the course of the operation have been respectable enemy targets lawfully engaged and killed in accordance with the legal guidelines of battle. Roberts-Smith stated the person with the prosthetic leg was engaged exterior the compound carrying a weapon, and described allegations he had ordered the execution of the aged man as “fully false”.
However it's at variance with earlier proof from a number of SAS troopers known as by the newspapers.
The courtroom has heard comparable – although not an identical – proof from 5 former and serving SAS troopers that males have been pulled from the tunnel and brought into custody by Australian troops.
The newspapers being sued additionally allege Individual 5 and Roberts-Smith have been each concerned within the demise of the aged man found hiding within the tunnel.
Within the newspapers’ defence, it's alleged that after the Afghan males have been pulled out of the tunnel, Roberts-Smith was current when Individual 5 ordered one other Australian soldier – Individual 4 – to execute the aged man.
“Pursuant to that order Individual 4 positioned [the Afghan man] on his knees and shot him at the back of the top. Individual 4 was ordered to execute [the Afghan man] in order that he could possibly be ‘blooded’,” the defence doc states.
The newspapers allege Roberts-Smith “didn't say or do something to encourage Individual 5 to withdraw the order or to cease Individual 4 following the order”, arguing that he was complicit in, and accredited of, the person’s homicide.
One other SAS soldier, Individual 41, has given a barely differing account of the alleged homicide of the aged Afghan man, alleging it was Roberts-Smith who gave the order he be executed.
Individual 41 informed the courtroom Roberts-Smith and Individual 4 requested to borrow the suppressor from his weapon, then stated: “RS [Roberts-Smith] walked down and grabbed the Afghan male by the scruff of his shirt.”
He stated Roberts-Smith walked the person about 2 metres till he was in entrance of Individual 4, “then kicked him at the back of the legs behind the knees till he was kneeling down … RS pointed to the Afghan and stated to Individual 4 ‘shoot him’.” Individual 41 stated he stepped out of the compound to keep away from witnessing the execution: when he stepped again in, Individual 4 was standing above the aged man, who was useless from a single bullet wound to the top.
In his proof, Individual 5 was requested instantly: “Have you ever ever killed an individual who was beneath confinement?”
“By no means,” he replied.
“Have you ever ever ordered a member of the Australian Defence Pressure who was beneath your command to kill an individual beneath confinement?”
“By no means.”
Individual 4 has already given proof on this trial, spending 5 days within the witness field.
Whereas he gave proof about different SAS missions he participated in, Individual 4 objected to answering questions on his actions at Whiskey 108: “I object on grounds of self-incrimination,” he informed the courtroom. After intense authorized debate over whether or not he ought to be compelled to reply, justice Anthony Besanko dominated he didn't should reply.
One soldier witness, often called Individual 24, beforehand informed the courtroom that hours earlier than the Whiskey 108 assault, he noticed Individual 5 within the SAS headquarters.
“Individual 5 got here to the doorway of our patrol room and he was in a jovial method, dancing a little bit of a jig,” Individual 24 stated.
“He stated that we're going to ‘blood the rookie’.”
Individual 24 stated he understood the phrase to imply “they have been going to facilitate or put [Person 4] … ready the place he might get a kill beneath his identify”. Beneath cross-examination he defended his proof in opposition to allegations he was mendacity and motivated by malice: “I’m compelled right here to inform the reality”.
Individual 5 informed the courtroom on Tuesday he had by no means heard the time period “blooding the rookie” till 2018, “simply days earlier than I left the SAS”.
Individual 5 was requested in courtroom: “Throughout 2009, did you ever say to anybody ‘we’re going to blood the rookie’?”
“By no means,” Individual 5 responded.
On Tuesday afternoon, Individual 5 gave proof a couple of fierce daylong firefight on the 2010 Battle of Tizak, for which the SASR was awarded a Battle Honour, and Roberts-Smith the Victoria Cross.
He stays within the witness field. The trial resumes Thursday.
Post a Comment