Thank you. Right. That brings me now to module two. The first issue concerns applicants for core participant status in relation to the Metropolitan Police and the newspapers, and I also believe the NUJ. I granted that status for all modules, I think. I did not grant the status at that stage to those for whom Mr Sherborne appears, because I was then unclear as to the precise role that they may feel it appropriate to take in other modules, and I will be pleased to hear Mr Sherborne on that subject in a moment.
I have also received a number of individual applications, and each person who wishes to make an application may do so. If they're by counsel, then they can do so from where they are, because they all have microphones, but for those who are not by counsel, I'll ask them to come to the witness box, not because I'm treating them any differently, but simply because there is a microphone there, and then their application can be recorded.
But I'm very keen to make this clear: it is no part of my function, except in certain illustrative ways, to descend into the detail of specific incidents. That is not to show disrespect to those who believe they have been wrongly treated by the police or the press, or to suggest that their issues are unimportant. It is merely to underline the fact that, were I to do so, the time that I would require to examine each individual incident, many of which are exceedingly complex, would overwhelm the available time resource for this Inquiry.
I would be very grateful if those who wish to make applications bear that in mind.
There's one other general point that I would like to make, which is this: I have been assisted by a single team acting for those who allege they have been the subject of wrongful treatment by the press in the first module, but it is important to underline that I do not insist that anybody who complains about the conduct, in this case, of the press and the police and the way in which they interrelate, does so through that team.
The solicitor to the Inquiry is available to assist those who may be called to give evidence without having core participant status, and a number of people have given evidence without being core participants, who speak of relevant matters to the Inquiry.
So if I decline an application -- of course, I'll hear each one on its merits -- that's not to say that I will necessarily rule out listening to evidence, receiving evidence, a statement, about which the solicitor can provide some assistance, and if necessary calling it if I believe it goes to the general picture that I am keen to create, rather following the pattern that I have been keen to create for module one.
I hope that's all sufficiently clear.
Right. I think we'll start with you, Mr Sherborne. It wasn't my intention to put those for whom you appear in a disadvantaged position; it was to give your clients the opportunity to consider, to pause for thought whether they wanted to involve themselves in other aspects of this Inquiry, taking on the wider role of representing those who complain that they are the victims in this case of police/press issues, not least because, as I know you appreciate, funding decisions are inevitably based in part on ability to pay, and therefore decisions should be made by your clients at each stage. So it wasn't intended to suggest that your position was any different to others, but merely to give everybody the chance to think, after module one, where they wanted to go on module two.