You are correct, your Honour. It is me who is dealing with this witness. Clearly at the time in July 2004 the witness may well have been a child witness and therefore covered by the order. I raise the question as I think he is now 21, does that mean that he is still covered, because as I understood it the category, Category B, was meant to cover witnesses who were at the time still children.
If I am misunderstanding the purport of the judgment on 5 July 2004 then I am perfectly happy to have that pointed out, but my understanding of it was that it was meant to protect those who were children because if you look in the paragraph we were just looking at - actually it is not that. It is paragraph 34 of the judgment, can I read it out. It is quite short:
"As regards Category B witnesses (child witnesses) the Prosecution seeks the possibility for testimony by way of closed circuit television. Whilst the witness testifies in a back room in the court building this would allow the accused and the Defence as well as the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution to see the witness on a television screen and observe his or her demeanour while the image on the screen for the public at that time would be distorted. As stated by psychologist Anne Michaels, 'Vulnerable witnesses such as children have a high risk of retraumatisation and the possibility of stigmatisation and rejection is real and high'."
They then went on to say they agreed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court as to the use of closed circuit television.
I raise it because clearly we all understand and accept that vulnerable witnesses such as children do fall into a special category, but the witness is no longer a child and clearly hasn't been a child for some years and that is why I raise the question does decision still apply to him?