I think that deals with types and order.
Finally, I'm asked to consider the approach to be taken in respect of matters and persons subject to current police investigation.
In relation to those who are the subject of investigation, I will rigorously follow the self-denying ordinance that I set for myself at the beginning of this Inquiry, so as not to prejudice an investigation or any potential consequences of that investigation. So that will be the same as before. But my immediate reaction is that that does not prevent me from examining with a degree of care what has happened in relation to the history of investigation.
It's no secret, and has been the subject of considerable comment, that the original prosecution was on a comparatively limited basis, that there were various reconsiderations of that decision and that it was only some considerable time after those, and in particular following the publication of material in the Guardian and I think it was the New York Times that what has now been known as Operation Weeting started.
My reaction is to say that it is not in any sense likely to impinge adversely upon the investigation of crime or any possible prosecution if I look at what happened to those attempts to resuscitate the inquiry.
I say that because if there was to be any point to be taken on that issue in a criminal trial, it would be taken in advance of the trial and therefore require full exploration before the case got anywhere near a jury.
So that's my present view. I don't ask anybody to take a contrary argument at this stage, if they want to, because I've not alerted them to the point. But my understanding of the criminal law is such that I do not believe that that sort of inquiry could possibly cause prejudice to an investigation which is, of course, being conducted by very different police officers, or the consequences of that investigation to the future.