Madam President, there is a reason in principle and also a reason in practice. The reason in principle is that it is the Prosecution's continuing duty to disclose that information to us. It does not, on the face of it, require a motion from the Defence. That's the reason in principle.
There is also a practical issue here. We did not receive your written decision clarifying the meaning of exculpatory evidence in relation to such potential witnesses until Thursday afternoon. But, be that as it may, the principle still remains that this is a matter for the Prosecution to review. They had - and it was only on Thursday afternoon that they had, for the first time, in writing, the Court's own interpretation of their obligations to disclose in relation to exculpatory material of this nature, and so they have had very little time, indeed, to review the category of witnesses that I am talking about, and we would not have expected them between Thursday afternoon and Friday at 5 o'clock to have suddenly come up with a list of - or with further disclosure. We appreciate that they need time to look at that and to carry out their obligation.
It is only if, in our view, they do not carry out their obligations with sufficient and reasonable time to do so, that we would then, in our view, be required to put in a written motion to the Court. I hope that clarifies our position, Madam President.
Those are my submissions, if there is anything else before I sit down that I can clarify, I am obviously happy to do so.