ADV LOURENS
That is so.  That is the point I will come to, but Mr Chairman, you have raised it.  I would ask that the Committee have regard to the fact that these applicants would have been in their late teenage years or early 20 years in the case of number one at the relevant time and they had not acted as a well trained group who had done this kind of thing before.  It was almost a spontaneous reactions of youths in reaction to what was occurring there and the thought of what might occur if you have a firearm with you might not have actually entered their minds and I think that is something that came out in the evidence, that the shootings occurred in that particular situation.  There had not been much thought beforehand, there had not been much planning, what would happen if this happened or that happened and, yes, Mr Chairman, I would ask the Committee to bear that in mind as well.  That it was not a well thought out plan of experience or trained persons.
	The evidence, I would ask the Committee to accept the evidence that the motive for the robbery was to obtain firearms.  In this regard it is clear that the, and I think the Committee may accept this, that all three were political activists at the time.  All three were involved in PAYCO and were very politically aware and their evidence was that they did need firearms to deal with the situation that they found themselves in.  As to the aspect of the jewellery and the money that was stolen, I would ask the Committee to accept the explanation of the applicants number two and three who had knowledge of the theft of those items and what was done with the items and that was that the jewellery was exchanged for firearms and, if I might summarise, the money was used for transport and living expenses at the time for the activists.  Number one's explanation ...