Just to say this, Mr President: In our submission, my learned friend's argument betrays the real difficulty now faced by this Court because it seems to us it's really not for a party to proceedings to be the ultimate decision-maker as to which category documents fall into. In our submission, that is a judicial decision and it is not for my learned friend to say that hypothetical considerations are unimportant, when in the same breath she concedes that it may well be open to your Honour in due course to use the additional matters included in those documents of your own volition in support of guilt.
Now, in our submission, if there is - and by the argument my learned friend is conceding that the documents can be used, if only hypothetically, for more than one purpose, why are we being provided with those parts which hypothetically could be proof of guilt and which she concedes in due course your Honours may well decide to rely upon in proof of guilt?
Bearing in mind the very fine line here between the two categories, it seems to us that it's for your Honours to make that decision, not for the Prosecution. And it seems to us that your Honours should be given sufficient time to discharge, in our submission, that important judicial function. That's all I say in reply.