MR VISSER
Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to read the last relevant part
"(f) by any person referred to in (b), (c) or (d) who on reasonable grounds believed that he or she was acting within the course or scope of his duties and within the scope of his express and implied authority."
Mr Chairman, we submit that it is quite clear that what the applicants came to you on is the basis: I was a policeman, I was ordered to do certain things and as a foot soldier I carried it out. Now that is perfectly acceptable, and then it depends on whether that is the evidence which you accept at the end of the day. But, Mr Chairman, ass far as Mr Ngo is concerned, my learned friend has this problem. Mr Ngo, we know, becomes a policeman on 10 February 1986. We know on the evidence before you that he was suspended on 2 January 1989. 
	Now without splitting hairs, Mr Chairman, a policeman who is on suspension cannot claim that he then can act in the course and scope of his duty. It is a logical argument. Logic would have it that he can't say that.
	What we say is this, Mr Chairman, and this my learned friend Mr Memani has neglected to do. The applicant, Mr Ngo, would have to convince you on each and everyone of his applications that they fell within that period of time.