MR WILLS
No, again Mr Chairperson, initially when I was preparing for the matter, I thought there was a distinction between the two in that the first and the second incidents, in a similar way, but it is my submission that the two incidents can be viewed in a very similar light.
	If one looks at the context within which that information was given, Pat comes to the applicant, he says, he comes in the context of wanting to neutralise a struggle or an attack coming from across the river.  Pat doesn't ask the question innocently and the accused, the applicant doesn't interpret the question neutrally.
	He knows exactly what Pat is going to do, so he points those persons out in the full knowledge, or he points that area out in the full knowledge that he knows Pat is going to be involved in the attack.  He then goes further and tries to enlist the support of the other SDU Commander, this Mnini individual, and then Mnini does give him that information.
	Clearly he knew exactly what was going to happen and then later on, within a relatively short period of time, that exact area is attacked.  He sees Pat's car going in that direction, and he knows that that is the direction which he pointed to Pat and he knew before there was any shooting, that Pat was in fact going to attack, and it transpired that Pat did in fact attack.
	I would submit that exactly the same argument ensues.  The one thing which concerned me initially about the question of Mr Lax to the applicant was the issue of whether or not he didn't obeyed an order, but I don't know if you want me to address you, or he went outside the bounds of what was SDU policy.  My view is, which I would be prepared to argue on, is that that isn't a necessary exclusion in regard to him being granted amnesty.