341 / 494
340
Re: Para.10.175 and 10.176 (formerly 10.133 and 10.134) – Summary of
Responses
10.201.
(i)
The evidence regarding the use of mortars has not disclosed
reckless or irresponsible conduct.
(ii) Maj. Cobb-Smith should not be considered as an expert. He
was not trained to fire a mortar. He was trained to plan for
its use in live firing environments.
(iii) Maj. Dixon is a trained mortar officer and has been involved
in the use of mortars. The Commission should not, on the
evidence, prefer Maj. Cobb-Smith’s evidence to that of
Maj. Dixon regarding the use of mortars.
(iv) The finding of reckless and irresponsible use of the weapon
should depend upon whether there was evidence of
damage, injury or death.
(v) The Commission should be wary of Maj. Cobb-Smith’s
evidence of what he observed at premises six years after the
event.
Commission’s Comments and Findings
10.202.
As we have pointed out above, we do not accept that a
finding of reckless and irresponsible conduct must only be linked to
consequences. Surely a person can drive a vehicle recklessly without
actually causing an accident or death. It is the manner of driving that
may be deemed reckless rather than the fact that no one was injured
as a result of the driving. Even if no one was injured or killed, firing a
mortar within the lethal area is evidence of recklessness.