MR WILLS
If I can just also add a final bit, I maintain my opposition on the basis that I think that the cross-examination would be irrelevant.
	Assuming and I don't assume this, but assuming Mr Hewitt is correct, as I understand Mr Hewitt's position, is that should he not, should the applicant not have been granted amnesty in respect of these two murders, then it is only then that Mr Hewitt would have an interest in cross-examining him.
	On the other hand, if it is established that the applicant has got indemnity in respect of these two attempted murders should I say, then Mr Hewitt would have no problem and he would not want to reserve his cross-examination.
	On the assumption that the applicant has not got indemnity for these matters, which is an assumption which I don't believe is correct, but on that assumption, I would certainly advise the applicant not to testify and not to subject himself to cross-examination in order that I would reserve his rights against self-incrimination.
	If the applicant in those circumstances would take my advise, it would seem to me that there would be no fruitful result in Mr Hewitt's cross-examination, with the result that there would have been no point in the first place, of reserving his cross-examination.