CHAIRPERSON
Yes, it would seem from the evidence that we've heard now from Mr Wheeler and as you say what's on the documentation, that it would be difficult to foresee a situation of Mr De Bruin being convicted in a court of law in respect of the death of the deceased and the injury of the deceased's brother, you know either as an accessory before the fact or in any other way, because it would seem that from what Mr Wheeler has said, he made certain statements and he created certain impressions in the mind of the applicants as to what action they should take, but if it would assist, I think the panel would be of the view that the evidence of Mr De Bruin would assist in this matter, so that would satisfy sub-section 2(b) there.   I'll hear what Mr Botha has to say about it, but I don't - my prima facie view is that there wouldn't be a problem from the panel's point of view of complying with the provisions of 2(b) before he calls - section 31.2(b) before he's called, if that would assist.