All right. Thank you. Mr Caplan, I take the point that you make, and I can't believe that a consideration whats not been given by your clients to that part of Mr Davies' book that impacts upon your clients.
There's some surprise being expressed to your right, but I'll hear it if anyone wants to say otherwise.
What I'm minded to do is to say that we hear, for example, Mr McMullen's evidence. If I am at all concerned, and of course I'll be guided in large part by you, that something has happened which requires time, and which allows me or justifies me taking a different view under Rule 10, then I'll do it. Fairness remains what I am anxious to achieve, but I'm anxious to achieve it in the context of the fact that I will not be specifically looking at individual stories to make findings of fact. I can't do that, because, as I've said many times, that would take years.
There may be one or two stories which I will want to investigate a little bit more on. We've heard some talked about. So I do want to see, for example, something more about where Dr Kate McCann's diary came from and what due diligence was put into that, but that's specific people we will ask those questions. There may be another example of that, I think there is, but again I think it's a News of the World employee who is concerned.
But given the over-arching issue, I will hear any complaint you have to make as and when you wish to make it, but I'm not minded to make orders about restricting this witness or that witness now, simply because I think that we'll probably manage within the time we have, but I'm always prepared to listen, and if it means that Mr McMullen or Mr Davies have to return, whether it's the next day or a couple of days later, then that's what will happen.