It would seem that with leave of Chamber if I could respond it might expedite matters to the three specific issues raised by Ms Hollis. With respect to exhibits that may be used in conjunction with Mr Taylor's testimony, Mr Griffiths has made public statements - and I believe before your Honours as well - that Mr Taylor will likely be on the witness stand for several weeks. Mr Taylor has sat through the proceedings for a significant length of time and will exercise his right under Rule 85 (C) to be heard. That will take some time.
Your Honours will appreciate the fact that at the beginning of this case when the new Defence team was appointed we were in possession of several boxes of documents, specifically the documental archives of Mr Taylor, and at the time the figure of boxes we had was somewhere about 18 to 20.
Even if, your Honours, we were to eliminate some of those documents, the bulk of the exhibits in our case will actually come through the accused and it's a significant number, so asking us to delineate the specific exhibits that we will use in conjunction with Mr Taylor's testimony we submit is the same as asking us to give you a comprehensive list of our exhibits. In sum and substance, that is the effect that doing so would have.
As I have said previously, this is one particular aspect of Rule 73 ter that poses a significant problem for us. I cannot in good faith say when exactly we will be able to comply. Of course we would be subject to any orders your Honours pronounce.
With respect to the second issue about copies of written statements, the law of the Special Court controls this issue I would submit. It is in the rare case that the Prosecution is entitled to receive the statements of witnesses. It is not in Rule 73 ter. It gives your Honours discretionary authority to order it, but the presumption is that they will receive summaries of a witness's statement.
The principal case on this issue is the Norman et al case and the standard enunciated there is a twofold standard. The Prosecution actually has to demonstrate by a prima facie standard that it would either face undue or irreparable prejudice should it not receive statements made by Defence witnesses. The decision on that case was given on 21 February 2006, Prosecutor v Norman et al, the case number SCSL-0114T.
It is not a matter of right that enures the Prosecution to receive Defence witness statements. There is no correlative rule vis-a-vis the reciprocal disclosure provisions calling for the Prosecution to disclose witness statements to the Defence. There is no correlative rule asking the Defence to do the same with respect to the Prosecution. So in order for them to receive the statements, your Honours, they have to make the showing. It is not for us to disclose those statements without them making the appropriate showing.
With respect to the last point raised by counsel I think in conjunction with the pre-Defence conference and the list of expert witnesses, Rule 94 bis lays the bare minimum of 21 days within which we are to tender the statement of experts and the matter or field of expertise that they will be testifying about. That is the barest minimum.
The rule does say the earliest as is possible, your Honours have to presume we are acting in good faith and to the extent we are able to do so we will do so in the earliest possible manner as called for by the rule, but there is a floor in that rule - I mean as in F-L-O-O-R - vis-a-vis the deadline when we are to comply with its requirements and that is 21 days before the witness is called to give evidence. It doesn't have to be at the pre-Defence conference. It could very well be in the middle of the Defence case. So that is my submission in respect to that request by learned counsel opposite.