Ben Roberts-Smith witness grilled over ‘rookie’ note in court

A key witness for Ben Roberts-Smith has denied calling junior colleagues “rookies” and rejected accusations of lying in court.

A key witness for Ben Roberts-Smith has denied he lied about a tunnel where Nine newspapers allege two Afghans were discovered and executed.

The witness, codenamed Person 5, was cross-examined for a second day on Friday by Nine’s barrister Nicholas Owens SC.

Person 5 and Mr Roberts-Smith, who is suing the newspapers for defamation, both deny Nine’s allegations two men were found in a tunnel in a compound called Whiskey 108, detained and then executed.

The former soldiers further deny Nine’s claim Person 5 ordered a “rookie” soldier to shoot one of the men so he could be “blooded” by making his first kill.

Decorated veteran Ben Roberts-Smith is suing Nine newspapers for defamation. Picture: Simon Bullard

In Person 5 and Mr Roberts-Smith’s version of events, the men were legitimately killed in action and were never in the tunnel.

Some of the day’s evidence concerned Person 5’s stated belief the tunnel had a second exit, which Nine says is false.

Mr Owens told the court he believed Person 5 was lying about that belief, because it would bolster his “false” account that no insurgents were found down there.

In fact, Mr Owens said, pictures from inside the tunnel proved it would have been “blindingly obvious” the tunnel didn’t lead anywhere.

Person 5 said on Friday he had for years after the 2009 mission “assumed” the tunnel had another exit, but revealed he had been “set straight … a couple of years ago” by another soldier, known as Person 35, who explained there was no other exit.

“Sorry what did Person 35 tell you?” Mr Owens replied.

“He told me he had looked for another exit but hadn’t found one.”

The tunnel has become a major issue in the defamation case.

The revelation led Mr Owens to allege that Person 5 had lied in his outline of evidence to the court, where Mr Owens said he had claimed there were two exits.

“You knew the outline contained a falsehood,” Mr Owens said.

“No … (Person 35’s) opinion was that there wasn’t (a second exit), and mine was that there was ” Person 5 responded.

Mr Owens suggested the opinion of Person 35 should have had more weight than Person 5, because the former had been inside the tunnel.

It prompted Person 5 to reveal he too had gone down into the tunnel.

“I went in there too,” he said.

Mr Owens contended that if Person 5 had been down there, it should have been clear there was no second exit.

Person 5 also denied colluding with Mr Roberts-Smith and other witnesses about their evidence of the Whiskey 108 mission.

Person 5 agreed he sent the Victoria Cross recipient a drone image of the compound but denied trying to get their stories straight over what happened there.

The Whiskey 108 compound was located near the Afghan community of Kakarak.

“I don’t have to get my story straight, I know exactly what happened,” the witness said.

Person 5 was asked by Mr Owens if he had ever referred to Person 4 and another soldier, Person 8 as “rookies” or “rookie fucks”.

Mr Owens suggested Person 4 was “the rookie” during their 2009 deployment and that the new “rookie” during a deployment the following year was Person 8.

“No,” Person 5 responded.

Mr Owens suggested to Person 5 his denials that he ever used the term or heard it during the deployments were false and intended to make Mr Roberts-Smith‘s case seem more plausible.

“That's not correct,” Person 5 responded.

Mr Owens then made reference to what he said was a piece of paper that had been pinned to a patrol room door during Person 5‘s 2010 deployment.

“It was divided into six squares, and each square had the name of the patrol member … only instead of Person 8‘s name, the word ’Rookie’ appeared,” Mr Owens said.

“I don‘t remember that,” Person 5 responded.

Mr Owens then asked the court to be temporarily closed to the public.

Also on Friday, a different judge denied a request by Nine to get access to documents related to the preparation of the outline of evidence, which the newspaper had applied to earlier this month.

The hearing continues.