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 similarly rejected accusations of other unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence published in newspapers in 2018.
The Victoria Cross recipient is suing The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times for defamation in the Federal Court, which is now hearing from witnesses called by Mr Roberts-Smith's legal team.
Mr Roberts-Smith's former Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) patrol commander, codenamed Person 5, yesterday 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 at a Taliban compound nicknamed Whiskey 108, 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 Person 5's patrol, which included Mr Roberts-Smith.
Nine's barrister Nicholas Owens SC highlighted Person 5 mentioned grey as a paint colour for the first time today.
Mr Owens put to the witness that he "realised you were about to be caught out 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 showing the paint.
According to Nine's defence documents, Person 5 allegedly ordered a "rookie" colleague, Person 4, to execute another Afghan man at the compound in order to "blood" the soldier, but Person 5 has denied giving such an order to anyone.
Another witness, Person 41, has given a slightly different account and told the court 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 he enforced a procedure that all his soldiers were to carry suppressors, although they were not to be used during daylight.
Mr Owens put it to Person 5 that it was "far from improbable" that if a person only intended to fire one shot, they would borrow a suppressor already fitted to another soldier's weapon as opposed to finding their own in their pack.
"I don't agree with that," the witness said.
Mr Owens suggested that if it could be made to seem "implausible" Person 4 needed to borrow a suppressor, the newspapers' case is less likely to succeed.
"He wouldn't have had to borrow a suppressor," Person 5 said.
During his time in the witness box, Person 4 objected to answering a question about what happened at Whiskey 108, triggering a legal debate which resulted in Justice Anthony Besanko ruling he should not be directed to give the evidence.
Person 5 has denied repeated suggestions from Mr Owens that he colluded with Mr Roberts-Smith to "get his story straight" about Whiskey 108.
He insisted they remain friends and the frequency of their contact did not change because of Mr Roberts-Smith's two interviews for an inquiry by the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force.
The witness further denied colluding with three other witnesses all expected to appear for Mr Roberts-Smith — Person 29, Person 35 and Person 38 — in the weeks before their outlines of evidence were due in the lead-up to the defamation case.
Person 5 said it was "no surprise" he had spoken to the men because they were friends and denied discussing the evidence they planned to give.
"Are you saying because there's a trial on, you can't speak to your friends anymore?" Person 5 replied at one point.
The trial continues.
