CHAIRPERSON
No, no, that is true, that is true, you're quite correct when you say that we have to judge the actions in that particular context at that time, not now from a sort of a convenient armchair position, and we certainly don't intend doing that either.  But I think what concerns us a bit is, we have to assess this in terms of the criteria that are laid down in the Act.  My brother has referred you to some of that, some of those provisions.  So we've got to weigh this up and see whether this particular action, over and above what your client might have thought subjectively of this, we have to test it against all these yardsticks, of proportionality, of a cause or connection between the incident and the objective that they were pursuing, the nature of the act, who the victims were, whether it was political opponents.
	So we've got to take a global view of the situation and then assess it and see whether we are satisfied that it is an act associated with a political objective, as it's defined in that Section 20(3).  So I think that's really what we're talking about.  Leaving aside the subjective state of mind of your client, when we test this action against all these other criteria, does it fall within the definition of an act associated with a political objective?  Where you throw in the handgrenade, not strictly speaking in line with your instruction from the primary source of authority, but on the scene when you busy actually executing that.  And I think that's the difficulty that we are trying to deal with.