A former elite soldier has rejected accusations in court that he and war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith have "concocted a false story" to cover up the death of a detained Afghan man during a 2012 mission.
The witness was called by Mr Roberts-Smith's legal team in a defamation case against three newspapers, over a series of stories published in 2018 which the veteran claims contained false allegations of unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence.
Codenamed Person 11, the ex-SAS soldier has given evidence supportive of Mr Roberts-Smith's own account of a mission in the village of Darwan.
In publisher Nine Entertainment's court documents, it's alleged the Victoria Cross recipient kicked an unarmed and handcuffed Afghan man named Ali Jan over a cliff following an interrogation, before he was dragged from a dry creek bed into vegetation and executed.
Person 11 told the Federal Court he shot a suspected Taliban lookout in a cornfield from a distance of about 15 metres, after assessing the man posed a "direct threat" to their helicopter extraction due to his movement and an ICOM radio in his hand.
Under cross-examination by Nine's barrister, Nicholas Owens SC, Person 11 on Wednesday told the court the area where he saw the "spotter" was "thickly-vegetated", with crops varying in height between five and seven feet.
"Did the 15 metres of thickly-planted crop impede your ability to observe him at all?" Mr Owens asked.
"I had enough visibility to observe what I saw," Person 11 replied.
Mr Owens put to him a list of reasons why it was "unlikely" a spotter could have remained undetected in the cornfield by that point in the mission.
The barrister said there had been a "lengthy and detailed clearance" of either side of the village to the field, and there was an "overwatch" post with a clear line of sight to the area Person 11 identified as the spotter's location.
"I don't accept that," Person 11 said to both propositions.
Mr Owens said on Person 11's account, his patrol had been adjacent to the cornfield in a "defensive position" looking out for threats for some time before soldiers received extraction orders.
He said there had also been a "thorough scan" of the area surrounding the helicopter landing site by a drone and Apache helicopters less than half an hour prior.
Again, Person 11 rejected both propositions.
"You and Mr Roberts-Smith have concocted a false story to say there was a spotter in a cornfield to cover up the fact Mr Roberts-Smith kicked a PUC [person under control] off a cliff and you shot him in the cornfield," Mr Owens said.
"That's not correct," Person 11 replied.
Mr Owens said the witness's explanation as to why he was in the cornfield — to clear the area for helicopter landing — was "contrived".
"That's not correct," the witness replied.
Person 11 denied he shot the man when he was standing a metre or two away while the man's hands were cuffed behind his back.
Person 11 also rejected the suggestion the radio was placed on the body after he was shot.
When he gave evidence last year, Mr Roberts-Smith denied all wrongdoing and gave a similar account of a spotter being shot in a cornfield.
However, the account contradicts previous evidence from another soldier on the mission, Person 4, who was called by the publisher and claimed to have seen Mr Roberts-Smith kick a man over a slope.
Mr Owens showed the witness a December 2019 email from a lawyer who was, at that time, acting for Person 11.
Person 11 agreed the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had twice requested to interview him.
The lawyer's email read, in part: "the offer is declined to participate in a record of interview as part of the AFP investigation into his conduct during ADF operations in Afghanistan".
But Person 11 repeatedly denied awareness of any ongoing investigation, and also rejected the suggestion there was a risk he would in the future be prosecuted over what allegedly occurred in Darwan.
"I understand the AFP wanted to conduct interviews, I have no understanding of an AFP investigation," he said.
Mr Owens put to the witness that lawyers acting for him, which were arranged by Mr Roberts-Smith, had completed $125,000 worth of work over several years, however Person 11 insisted he had no idea of any arrangements about who was footing the bill.
"If I'm given a bill for this today, I'll pay it tomorrow," he said.
Mr Owens put to Person 11 he saw the defamation proceedings — a civil case with a lower standard of proof to criminal cases — as an opportunity to influence whether a prosecution may eventuate.
Person 11 rejected that, and further denied another motive was for him to "vindicate your own personal reputation".
"I'm here to tell the truth and the truth will prevail," he said.
"I understand this is not a criminal but a civil trial, but nonetheless people need to hear the truth."
He also denied being "angry" with Person 4, who was once a good friend and the best man at his wedding, for speaking out about the allegations.
"To be honest I pity him, I feel for him," Person 11 said.
"He was a great friend, a great man, and I know that he struggles and I understand his struggles and I really feel for him, I do."
The trial, before Justice Anthony Besanko, continues.
