I'm sure we'll get them. I have no doubt we're going to have to analyse where the law of privacy presently stands.
The second thing that I'd like those who are acting for core participants to consider is this: there are inevitably some credibility issues that will arise. I take very much on board Mr Browne's point today about specific points not being put, and the concern that cross-examination is inevitably being very restricted, if not effectively prevented.
But I would be grateful if the core participants would address themselves to issues of credibility so that by the end of module one, or within two weeks thereafter, if they have submissions on the credibility of witnesses, they can make them in writing.
I make it abundantly clear that the reason that I am keen to do that in relation to module one, and I'll hear anybody who wants to suggest that that's not feasible or appropriate, is so that I can consider the narrative and those features that are contained within Count 1 concurrently with the rest of the Inquiry.
I am very concerned not to hear the entirety of the Inquiry and then be left at whatever date we finish with volumes of evidence, even more volumes of transcripts, and then left, as it were, to start from scratch on the analysis. So I want to start the analysis, because I do think these three modules are comparatively self-contained, sooner than that.
From your perspective, Mr Jay, do you see any problem with that?