MR DEHAL
Mr Chairperson, perhaps I should come in at this stage, just two aspects.
	My learned colleague, Mr Prior, referred to Mr Currin and the quotation from me that he does not have anything further in his file.  Mr Currin does not practice as he used to before, he practices from his residential premises, his files are somewhat in a disarray and that is the impression that I got from him.  He searched through his archives, obtained a few files and said that those would not assist me in these proceedings.   Mr McBride recollects specifically, when assisted by Mr Currin during the Section 29 proceedings, that an application was handed in and indeed that is referred to on page, or rather is more fully dealt with on pages 3, 4 and 5 of bundle C, some of the aspects I have quoted in my Heads, but particularly Mr Chairperson, if I may take you to paragraph 3, that the top of it is an address by Mr Currin which begins at the bottom of page 2 wherein Mr Currin says -
"... thank you very much, one doesn't  - 	I certainly haven't had a long history of appearance before this Committee, so I am not quite sure what the procedures are.  What we have which I will in a moment hand you back to Mr McBride (and this is relevant) is a document which contains detailed information with regard to the Magoo's bombing (and then much later, at the very end of that, I think at about lines 16, 17 the words) and it is also  the, this will be part of his application, verbatim part of his application which we will lodge to the Amnesty Committee at a later stage."
	Mr Chairperson, I may just say that this document was subsequently affirmed under oath by Mr McBride when his evidence began and then on page 4 from lines 11, 12 onwards, the Chairman says the following -
"... I can assure you  that the information obtained at Section 29 hearings, are absolutely confidential, people are here sworn to secrecy."
	And then Mr Govender below that says -
"... just one concern Mr Chairman, my learned friend referred to a statement that he is going to hand over to the Commission.  Just to get clarity from my learned friend whether this is an amnesty application or a statement in response to the information that we require in terms of our subpoena.  Perhaps he can clarify that for us."
	Mr Currin's response in that regard is appropriate, he says the following -
"... it is an amnesty application which deals specifically with the incident which is referred to in the subpoena.  In the amnesty application details are given with regard to that particular incident and the details which are given in our view, deal with the sort of information that we anticipate that this, your team, would require."
	And then the next excerpt is very appropriate -
"... and the purpose of handing in this particular application is because Mr McBride would prefer if possible, to make one statement to the TRC.  He would prefer not for the TRC to have more than one statement dealing with this particular matter for reasons of evidence and procedure when his application is heard."
	And then in the next sentence again he refers to application, wherein he says -
"... once you have looked at the affidavit, once you have looked at the application which he is willing obviously to swear to the contents of it, to the extent to which it relates to his personal knowledge, you can then decide whether you want further information."
	And then Mr Chairperson, much later, Mr McBride - sorry the Chairman on page 7 from line 7 deals with it as follows -
"... Mr McBride (he says), Mr McBride and Mr Currin, the document you are going to be handing up, is in essence an extract from a broader amnesty application.  Does it contain any supporting documentation or extracts from other supporting documents as well?
	Mr Currin -
"... yes."
	Then the Chairman says -
"... okay, well then perhaps Mr McBride you are under oath already, do you confirm that this document that you are about to hand up is to the best of your knowledge and belief true and correct?  Yes, I affirm that" ... (says McBride).
	Now three things, one it is the application for amnesty that appears to be a document referred to as the application in some respects, as the document in other respects and as the affidavit in other respects, but I understand in consultation with Mr McBride and this would come off in his evidence when he does testify,  that this application which was handed in by Mr Currin, was not strictly speaking the application for amnesty that we have in bundle A, pages 103 onwards, but an application which was supported by annexures thereto, so as to more fully explain aspects, and those annexures you would see Mr Chairperson, are referred to on page 7 of this bundle C, when the Chairman deals with those supporting documentation and extracts, on line 10, 11 and 12.  The words "does it contain any supporting documentation or perhaps from other supporting documents as well" and the answer is "yes."  I do not have, nor did I ever have the benefit of seeing that  complete document referred to therein, the annexures thereto, any supporting extracts, etc.  I therefore am somewhat at a loss as to what document they are referring to, but crisply the point is whatever the document is, it is that very document handed in by Mr Currin  to the Section 29 Amnesty Commission which is referred to in Mr McBride's amnesty application, to be included herein by reference principally, crisply, one-pointedly for the purpose of including a list of the names of the injured and deceased persons per se.  Sorry, I interjected at this stage when Mr Richard was addressing, I thought whilst I was dealing with that ...