MR RICHARD IN FURTHER ARGUMENT
Very briefly.  With regard to the question of perjury emanating from Section 31(3), I think the object of the legislature is plain.  If one imagines the results that would flow if this Commission could not sanction
people who lie to it and commit perjury in its face, it is ...(indistinct), the extension of the interpretation, I go back to what I have said earlier - somebody commits an act, is tried for it, during the course of his defence, lies, but he is not believed and convicted, and then comes out with the truth.  I took it as part of, it is not legally correct, but ...(indistinct).  
	Then when we talk about the debate of the furnishing or providing of Exhibit C, well, none of us in the room were responsible therefore, it would have been useful if some rules had been written some years ago, none were, I think what our learned colleague Mr Prior, said, practices and procedures have evolved.   My post-script to my point in limine, point in limine, I don't take it any further.  Then when one talks about onus and that topic, I have often questioned what is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I came to the conclusion that it is sui generis, it is neither an administrative tribunal in that sense, or body, nor a court of law.   It certainly is charged with a duty as (20) outlines, to investigate amongst other Sections, consider, decide, but on what criteria?  The word "its satisfaction" often comes up, I have cross-referred.   Clearly because it has powers of investigation as is set out in chapter 6, its power to obtain information, articles, and so on, that are relevant, cogent, pertinent, are considerably higher and more effective than any court of law or other ordinary administrative, so at the end of the day, I don't believe there is much purpose in pushing the point of onus.  It is really relevance, cogency and what in the end, is aimed at facilitating the outing of the truth.  The agreement, I wasn't a party to that agreement, I wasn't there and I don't believe the victim class were even present or represented at the Section 29 hearing.  An inference I draw that this supposed agreement that was arrived at, was really an agreement, might in fact and I take it no further than the word "might" an understanding as to what the law was.  An admission of what the law is, has never bound anyone.  The law is plain, what we have argued this morning is the law, and what was agreed, takes us no further.  In fact, the agreement is in my submission irrelevant and of no consequence to the victim class.  Thank you Chair, nothing further.