We are not talking about all potential Defence witnesses. Justice Doherty's characterisation of my argument is correct. We are talking about people whose names have already been disclosed to the Prosecution. And, indeed, if need be, we can assist the Prosecution by indicating again the names of those who we think fall into that category.
Then going back to Ms Hollis's first point, which really links in with her last point, the Defence have no desire to keep this case running indefinitely. And there is no suggestion, on our part, that we are going to keep it running indefinitely.
The Court will set a date today for the next status conference. That was what you, Madam President, indicated on the last occasion. And we are as anxious as anyone to make sure that the case is concluded expeditiously. But I have said all along, over the last three occasions, I think - three including today - that it is very unlikely that we will call any more live evidence, but for reasons that I have given on previous occasions and repeated today, we can't rule it out until all of the pleadings and all of the decisions of the Court are to hand. It would be, in our view, professionally verging on the professionally negligent to close the door now before we know the outcome of the Court's decisions on the motions.
Moving on, then, to those motions, there is, in law, no basis for ordering expedited response times. The Court is going to be in vacation for two weeks, albeit everybody knows that the parties and the Court itself, the judges and the Court staff, will maintain a number of people still working throughout the vacation, and that in itself is a degree of sacrifice and expedition on the part of the parties and the Court, the fact that people are going to be required to work through their vacation. And so, in our submission, the Prosecution have made out no basis in law for expedited filings. There is no reason in fact for expedited filings, and we do anticipate closing the case within the time that the Court previously indicated.
Now, the date of 12 November may have been fixed bearing certain matters in mind, but I think it is unfortunate that we should be criticised for reducing the number of witnesses that we were going to call, thereby saving not only the Court and the parties a great deal of time but also a vast amount of public expense. I hope we are not going to be criticised or penalised in any way for having achieved that. And so I would ask the Court to set a sensible and practical timetable, not to drag the case out a day longer than is necessary but to do justice to the Defence case by setting an appropriate date for the next status conference, the usual timetable for filings, and we can then all review the position by the time of the next status conference. The date of that is entirely, we would submit, in your Honours' hands, and we have no submissions on precisely when it should be, apart from what I said earlier.
Again, unless there are any matters on which I can assist further, those are my submissions.