UNKNOWN
Yes, that is so on that basis.
	Just one moment please.  With respect, I want to argue that 
Arthur, there's no indication that he is a co-conspirator and the 
aspect I've referred to regarding Mr Derby-Lewis, I've already 
referred to in my argument regarding her statements.
	Then to come back to Mr Derby-Lewis himself.  With 
respect, I want to argue that if you look at the facts which are 
fixed in this matter, there was for example, a plan to eliminate Mr 
Hani.  A decision was made, a firearm was obtained, a firearm 
was used for this purpose by Mr Walus.  Mr Walus executed this 
with Mr Derby-Lewis' approval and knowledge and on instruction 
from him for the purpose as indicated.  
	There was no discussion at all of how the weapon was 
obtained, how it was given to Mr Walus.  It is supported by the 
evidence in the Supreme Court as well, that the person who 
worked in the house saw this.  We should look at the fixed facts 
of this case, taking into consideration that Mr Derby-Lewis was 
interrogated or cross-examined for days by Mr Bizos.
	I argue that he made a full disclosure in as far as his 
involvement and the reason why he committed this.  His whole 
activities or actions refer to this.  
	A further aspect is that it should be into consideration that 
Mr Derby-Lewis was initially responsible for his application and 
he had very little real representation.  As statements are made it 
could be inaccurate.  And he was politician who compiled this 
when he made this application.