MR DEHAL
Mr Chairperson, I agree that it would have the same consequences, it would be the same, one way or the other, in that as you rightly read 31(1) and 31(3) read together, would give the consequence to both the documents included or otherwise, the same.  But what I am submitting is this, if you look at the Section 29 proceedings, my learned colleague, Mr Richard, talked about the various versions, the need to cross-examine on the versions at the trial, the subsequent versions Mr McBride led, the aspects of the appeal, the documents during the appeal and indeed the evidence in the Section 29 hearings, and Mr Ismail's evidence.  Now, I think in that submission lies somewhat the test and the aspects that I wish to address on.  If one now seeks to introduce these various versions for the purpose, it would seem, of interrogation, of cross-examining Mr McBride on the various versions, then one talks of perjury, one talks of conflicting, contradictory versions and the possibility of perjury.