Australian soldier denies lying in court about camouflage paint

A former elite soldier has denied lying in court about distinctive camouflage paint worn by Ben Roberts-Smith's patrol on the day the war veteran is accused of executing an unarmed Afghan man.

Mr Roberts-Smith denies the allegation and has rejected accusations of other unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence published in newspapers in 2018.

The recipient of the Victoria Cross is suing The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times for defamation in the Federal Court, which is now being heard from witnesses called by Mr Roberts-Smith's legal team.

The former Special Air Service Regiment SAS patrol commander, codenamed Person 5, was recalled wearing brown, green and black paint, like 99 per cent of all camouflage paint. A previous witness for publisher Nine Entertainment, Person 14, told the court that during a 2009 mission he saw an Australian soldier shoot what appeared to be a human body.

While Person 14 couldn't identify the soldier, he said grey and brown camouflage paint made it easy to identify as a member of the patrol of Person 5, which included Mr Roberts-Smith.

Nine's barrister Nicholas Owens SC highlighted Person 5 mentioned grey as the paint colour for the first time today.

Mr Owens put to the witness that he had realised that he was about to be caught in a lie No, that's not correct, Person 5 replied.

Asked whether he agreed Mr Roberts-Smith's paint included a distinctive light grey person 5 told the court he couldn't remember and it was 13 years ago. The witness was shown a photograph of Mr Roberts-Smith on the day of the mission.

According to Nine's defence documents, Person 5 ordered a rookie colleague, Person 4, to execute another Afghan man at the compound in order to blood the soldier, but Person 5 denied giving an order to anyone.

Person 41, another witness, told the court that Person 4 asked to borrow his weapon's suppressor after being directed by Mr Roberts-Smith to execute the Afghan man.

That witness said he stepped into another area, heard a gunshot, and returned to see the man's dead body.

During cross-examination, Person 5 agreed that he enacted a procedure in which all his soldiers were to carry suppressors, although they were not to be used during daylight.

It was said to Person 5 that it was not improbable that if a person intended to fire one shot, they would borrow a suppressor already attached to another soldier's weapon, rather than find their own in their pack.

The witness said I don't agree with that.

Owens suggested that if it were made to seem implausible Person 4 needed to borrow a suppressor, the newspapers' case is less likely to succeed.

Person 5 said he wouldn't have to borrow a suppressor.

During his time in the witness box, Person 4 objected to answering a question about Whiskey 108, which resulted in a legal debate that resulted in Justice Anthony Besanko ruling that he should not be directed to give the evidence.