An elite soldier giving evidence for Ben Roberts-Smith in the war veteran's defamation case has conceded his outline of evidence contained erroneous information about an incident he had no direct knowledge about.
The witness, a current member of the SAS codenamed Person 27, was called by Mr Roberts-Smith's legal team as the veteran sues three newspapers over a series of 2018 articles.
Mr Roberts-Smith claims they contained false allegations of unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence, and denies any wrongdoing.
The Federal Court has previously heard one unlawful killing is alleged to have occurred on a 2012 mission in Khaz Oruzgan, where Mr Roberts-Smith is accused of directing, via an interpreter, a member of the Afghan Partner Force to shoot a local man being questioned.
Several of the veteran's witnesses have suggested, in their outlines of evidence, that the partner force member, codenamed Person 12, was not present, according to publisher Nine Entertainment.
It's been suggested this was because he was removed due to an incident months earlier in which he shot a dog and the bullet ricocheted, injuring an Australian soldier codenamed Person 57.
Person 27 has conceded his outline contained the same "error" about Person 12 being involved in the dog incident.
"It's correct, isn't it, that you never had direct knowledge of the ... partner force member who shot a dog and injured Person 57?" Nine's barrister Nicholas Owens SC asked today during cross-examination.
"That is correct," Person 27 replied.
The witness said the first time he heard Person 12 shot the dog was when he met with Mr Roberts-Smith's lawyers, who asked "if I remember the incident".
He recalled a June 2019 teleconference which resulted in a written "outline summary" being sent to him.
"I said I'm not sure about that, I can find out because I'm able to talk to Person 57 but I was not there, I have no idea who any of those partner force were because they were not the partner force I was working with."
Person 27 has said in subsequent months he checked with Person 57, who told him the soldier involved in the dog incident was "not the bloke that everyone thinks it is".
He also contacted Mr Roberts-Smith and passed on a message that Person 57 could speak to the veteran about the issue, but denied discussing his outline of evidence.
Person 27 told the court he did not say anything to Mr Roberts-Smith's lawyers.
"To be honest, I still didn't have a lawyer from Defence," he said.
"I was fairly naive thinking that outline of evidence was just an outline and I would redo it.
"I hadn't signed it, I thought I would have to sign it ... I didn't give it much thought after 2019 at all."
A previous witness, Person 35, has also accepted he was mistaken in thinking Person 12 shot the dog.
Mr Owens accused Person 35 of colluding with four others, including Person 27 and Mr Roberts-Smith, to all tell the same "lie", which Person 35 denied.
The trial, before Justice Anthony Besanko, continues.
