Thank you, Mr President. Yes, we do. First of all, the disclosure of the documents which are being disclosed is not a concession by the Prosecution that indeed they fall under (ii), because our reading of the decision that your Honours placed before us, both (i) and (ii), in connection with the explanatory paragraph 27 is that documents or material that we intended to use for the purposes of impeachment only need not be disclosed. The great majority - the overwhelming majority of the material we intend to use will be for impeachment only, so we do not concede a disclosure obligation.
To ensure that we complied with your Honours' interpretation of your decision we disclosed all of the material but not because we believed that it actually was other than material under (i), material intended for the sole purpose of impeachment which does not require disclosure. Nonetheless, we have disclosed it.
In terms of the Defence argument that the line between the use of evidence for credit and the use of evidence for guilt is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine must be rejected even in jury trials because even when you are not before professional judges evidence may be offered and accepted and used for a limited purpose. And we have made it very clear that the overwhelming majority of the material we seek to use is for the limited purpose of impeachment. There are no cute little games that we intend to play. If it is for the purpose of guilt, the proper procedure will be followed and notice will be given, as notice was given on Friday to the Defence of which materials we intended to use today and tomorrow among all the materials that were disclosed and of those which, if any, were intended to - we would ask the purpose also be to prove guilt.
And the Mia Farrow affidavit was the one instance that we would use to prove guilt as well, or ask your Honours to consider for guilt as well. So it is not only possible, it is often done in trials, especially before judge alone, professional judges, that material is used and clearly identified for a particular purpose. So there is nothing difficult about that.
In terms of wasting of time, we have attempted to move forward efficiently and certainly we do not wish to waste time.
In terms of the quality of materials that have been provided, that is for your Honours to determine either at the time of admission where you would find they are not relevant or, the other appropriate test, have not been met or at the time you consider all of the evidence. So speaking of the quality of material at this point is immature.
In terms of the argument about the Defence's ability to advise their client, if the Defence is totally undermined because the Prosecution evidence shows that the accused has not testified truthfully before you, that is not a denial of a right to a fair trial. Even an accused doesn't have a right to come forward and testify untruthfully. So materials used for impeachment, first of all there is no right to give legal advice on those and, secondly, it certainly would not undermine the accused's fair trial rights if he has chosen to testify untruthfully and the impeachment materials show the lack of truthfulness of his testimony.
The Prosecution has done anything but act in a cavalier manner. We reject that. We find it is unfounded and unfair. We have attempted very diligently to comply both with what we understood your decisions to be and then what we learned subsequently your decisions were meant to involve, if we did not understand this.
In terms of providing your Honours with all of the material that we disclosed, we are most happy to do that. We are most happy to do that. Now, as to the potential use of that, of course, that will depend upon how it is used in cross-examination and any arguments that would be put forward. But in terms of providing your Honours with that material, you are professional judges; just as with the Defence MFIs, if ultimately you do not admit them into evidence, you simply disregard them. So we are happy to provide that to your Honours if your Honours wish it. We do not know that it is necessary, but, if your Honours wish it, we are very happy to do that and we find it no violation of any procedural or other rights or procedures.
In terms of an adjournment to consider the materials, the Defence will be getting materials that we intend to ask you to consider for guilt as well as the vast majority of materials that we only intend to ask you to consider for impeachment. If the Defence needs the time to talk to their client about those which we will ask you to consider for guilt, not those which hypothetically may be probative of guilt, then of course that is something that they should have the right to do.
But we do want to point out to your Honours our position is that it doesn't matter what hypothetical uses material may be put to. If the party using the material asks you to limit consideration of that material to a particular use, then what scenario are you faced with? Either the imposing party will say don't just use it for impeachment, also use it to consider guilt. We don't think that will happen. Or your Honours independently will determine that you wish to use it as probative of guilt even though we are asking you only to consider it for impeachment. That is of course within your prerogative but we find that unlikely as well.
So we do not believe there is this huge amount of material that the Defence will have to advise their client on because there is only a very small amount of that material which we will be asking your Honours to consider for purposes of proof of guilt. The overwhelming majority we will be asking your Honours to consider only insofar as it impeaches the 7,200 plus pages of direct examination and/or the some 300 documents that have been marked for identification.
So the bottom line after all those comments is: Should your Honours wish the material, we are most happy to provide it to you. And should the Defence feel it needs this time to discuss and give legal advice relating to documents which we will have clearly identified that we will seek your Honours to consider for guilt, then of course that is within their rights and it's up to your Honours' discretion. Those are our submissions, Mr President.