CHAIRPERSON
These are all separate applications, made separately probably not in each other's presence, at different times, at different places and they have been lumped together now, nothing wrong with it, matter of convenience and I think it is correct that they are heard together, but the fact is that they are separate applications being dealt with together for purposes of convenience and for - to deal with logistical questions as well, to meet logistical questions.  But they are separate applications.  Now, at this stage, should we rule that Mr McBride's Section 29 transcript of his evidence should be declared to be usable in Mr Ismail's application?  I ask that, what is your view?