CHAIRPERSON
Just a moment, before we go that far,  I'm uncomfortable about that aspect of the matter.  I think I must confer very quickly with my colleagues.
	Before we, and in fact I don't think subject to what people may say and having conferred with my colleagues I think I'm still feeling very uncomfortable about whether we should counsel to explain what happened during his consultation with his clients.  It's just not done unless exceptional circumstances do exist to what I'm not so sure whether they do in this case.  
	But perhaps Mr Prior I appreciate your concern but I think though that simply speaking it is not correct that you are prevented from using the statement because once the statement is given to you, you are free to use it in cross-examination like you have done.
	It would have been something quite different if once you started wanting to use that statement Mr Arendse objected and said: "No, you can't use that statement because during consultation my client told me that it was not true and soforth, he didn't do that".  
	Had he done so we probably would have overruled him and said: "Well, let your clients give an explanation".  So you are free to use it in cross-examination and you did in fact use that statement during cross-examination.
	Once you confront a witness with a statement which he would have made in consultation with his counsel, like an affidavit, once you confront him with the contents thereof and he says: "Well, that's not what I told my counsel", you can't take it further.
	Unless for some reason counsel himself feels that the witness is lying and counsel has got some other reasons why he would like to prove the witness a liar, like for example counsel wants to say that he feels that perhaps it's a reflection on himself and he wants to go into the witness box and then he wants to contradict the witness.
	But once the witness has said: "That's not what I told my counsel", there could be a host of reasons.  For example plain ordinary misunderstanding between the two of them during consultation.  And we normally just leave it there once a witness has said: "I didn't say that".
	Perhaps I should say this because it would appear that you're going to have possibly more of this kind of problem and we don't want to set a precedent where we call upon counsel to come and explain because in terms of the proposed guidelines which have not as yet been proclaimed, the new guidelines which we have drafted, it seems to me that legal practitioners are going to be required in advance to submit a summary of the statements by their clients like just happened now.
	I can foresee that while this is going to be helpful in the sense that the leaders of the evidence would know in advance more or less what the applicants are going to say.  We are going to also have this kind of problem where the statement will be found to be wanting in one or more respects.  
	And if on each such occasion when an applicant says: "Well that is not what I told my advocate", we would require of an advocate or an attorney to give an explanation, I think it would lead to an untenable situation.  
	And I don't think we should start today to create that kind of precedent.  We are not saying that it can never happen but for now we feel that each has been sufficiently ventilated and that it should be left there.