MR LAX
You don't have to, honestly, I'm very familiar with all these Sections.  You see where I disagree with you or where I'm finding difficulty with what you're saying is this.  Verster is not saying that: "I thought I had authority", he's not saying: "I believed I had authority", he's saying I got authority from Webb and Webb's denying that.  So he's not in a position of someone who can come under (f) and say: "I bona fide believed I had authority", because he's going further than that, he's saying: "I did get personal authority".  So he's not in the position of a footsoldier acting on someone else's order thinking that that person was authorised to give him the order.  And that's the gist of (f), is that there is an objective set of facts upon which you rely, a sort of representation if you like, on which you rely, which then says. "based on those facts, I am entitled to assume that the person who gave me the order had authority and I bona fide believed he had."  This is different, this is where you're in primary instance receive saying: "X gave me the order" and X is saying: "I didn't give you the order."  And that's what we have to look at.