GEORGE BIZOS
There is an element of common cause among our friends across the table, the evidence of the witness is that he doesn't know Mr van Zyl, nor did he authorise him.  He's being led into a situation where we can deny each other's version, but let's try and reconcile, and on that basis it is put to him that Mr van Zyl must have had this perception and the witness obliges with an affirmative answer.  I submit that this is not a permissible way of leading evidence.  The evidence thusfar from Mr Verster is not that he was under an incorrect perception, he says that this witness authorised the two conspiracies or attempted murders.  That is the evidence that must be put to him.  And as far as the last question, it's completely impermissible to ask a witness about what the perception of an operative that he does not know, he doesn't know what discussions there were, he doesn't know him at all, yet a favourable answer, so that they can have an argument about perceptions at the end of this hearing.  I submit that the question should be disallowed.