MR VISSER
Indeed so, yes Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, we say that there are other authorities, not directly in point again, this has never been dealt with Mr Chairman, this particular situation that we are dealing with here today, I found no authority at all on the point.
	We say not directly in point, which deals with the differentiation between informers and accomplices.  From these authorities it appears that the question as to whether a person must be considered to be an informer as opposed to an accomplice, depends on his own mens rea.  It also appears that a spy who participates in illegal activities, because he believes that he is doing it for his country, for a safer society, cannot be equated with the position of an accomplice.
	That much appears from Ghani's case Mr Chairman.   In Ghani's case I would read to you certain excerpts Mr Chairman.  At page 208(f) - (h), their Lordships Justices Harcort and Leon, stated the following.  They say in our view the case as a whole and these two extracts in particular, referring to extracts already given, emphasises the requirement that for a person to be an accomplice, there must be mens rea involved in a criminal association with the commission of the offence.
	If I may just pause there for a moment Mr Chairman, that would entail literally that before a Court would make an order of ordering the disclosure of the identity, that the Court would have to decide whether the person whose identity is in issue, is in fact an informer or an accomplice.
	This comes close to the situation where we are now Mr Chairman.  Their Lordships continue at page 210 - 212 and they say the following "it is clear however, that the immunity from being considered an accomplice, is not restricted to traps in this restricted technical sense, nor is there in our view any merit in the contention advanced by Mr Louwhen that a person who acts as a trap in an extended sense, must be regarded as an accomplice unless he had prior authority from the police or the Prosecution authorities for detecting and reporting criminal conduct."
	Their Lordships then referred to a case which they refer to as Salmonson's case and they say that it is clear from American and English authority which is appropo and of persuasive force in regard to the topic of accomplices, that persons who act to collect themselves, and to use it for the punishment of criminals, are not to be regarded as accomplices.
	Thus, Weakmore in his work on evidence, 3rd edition, states the position as follows:  the case of a pretended confederate who as detective, spy or decoy associates with the wrongdoers in order to obtain evidence, is distinct from that of an accomplice although the distinction may sometimes be difficult of application.
	Reference is then made to 1848 Mall, J in R v Mullen, Mr Chairman, and the reference is given, stated an accomplice is a person who has concurred in the commission of an offence, but such are different from spies, that is persons who take measures to be able to give to the authorities information so as to prevent those who are disposed to break out from effecting their purpose.
	In the case of an accomplice, he acknowledges himself to be a criminal.  In the case of these men, they do not acknowledge ...