I'm happy to do that. I think that essentially many of the points to be made I take on board. I'm happy to clarify some things if they need clarifying -- I'm not entirely sure they do -- but I'd be surprised if anything in the protocol could impact on the fundamental decision that I made in my ruling. But if there's anything that needs to be done tomorrow, I'll do it.
I think there are two slightly separate issues. There's the anonymity that I've granted to one of Mr Sherborne's clients, who I know as HJK, and there are some knock-on consequences as to how we're going to deal with his evidence. In the absence of anybody saying anything to the contrary, I propose to maintain that anonymity and to allow him to give evidence in a way that ensures it.
That will require taking certain measures. For example, he's likely to give evidence in a cleared Inquiry room. Obviously the core participants' lawyers will be present, but otherwise, nobody. I'm likely not to have the running transcript but to publish a transcript as soon thereafter as possible, in case something emerges that needs to be redacted. In that way, I hope that his evidence will be put into the public domain but in a form that doesn't damage the anonymity that he has sought and which I have found to be justifiable.
If anybody has any comment about that -- I appreciate you've only just recently seen the suggestions in that regard -- I'd be very, very interested to hear them. As regards other people, I'll make sure that I have a final protocol for you to look at tomorrow, but as I say, I don't think it should really make a difference to whether or not there is an issue that's worthy of ventilation in the Divisional Court, which of course is your decision entirely.