UNKNOWN
We submit that that is not an acceptable argument from a matter of first principles.  The CCB itself says "we were acting for the benefit of the State".  They can't then come and say yes, but you can't ask us to justify why we didn't make use of other mechanisms that were available to the State to maximally disrupt the enemy.  It's inconceivable that you can come along and say by definition we only resort to unlawful methods, so don't ask us to ever justify why it is that we did not make use of lawful methods that were available to us.  You can't begin to get involved in testing the proportionality of anybody's conduct on the basis of that hypothesis as your commencement point of your argument.
	So we submit and we say you can obviously take notice of the fact that in 1989 the State had had at its disposal a vast array of legal and non-violent resources.  Prosecuting its enemies was one, but even were one to move in the realms of having to take action on the basis of intelligence which cannot stand up in court, the applicants have the greatest of difficulty in justifying their methods.  The events dealt with in these proceedings occurred during the state of emergency.  The State was able to indefinitely detain, without trial, it's enemies.  This fate befell several thousands of people, some of whom were held for more than a year.  We say excepting for the sake of argument that Evans et al were the enemies of the State, to assess the proportionality of the State's response, one must proceed from the premise that the State was in a position to have indefinitely detained all of these people without trial and had it done so it cannot be doubted that such conduct would have severely disrupted the State's enemies.
	We say prima facie the objectives of the CCB and the State are thereby able to be achieved through means less damaging than murder and bombing.