Um ... I wonder whether -- well, let me accept that the paper trail is sufficient and complete. In that case, you would be right, and then it's a question of: is there a public interest defence?
Now, I think I heard some remarks from you, sir, earlier that -- how could this possibly be a public interest defence in these cases? I think it's worth bearing in mind that we're talking about 2003, and I certainly remember discussions between senior staff and the lawyers in 2002 saying -- how can I choose my words correctly? The remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in A v B, the Garry Flitcroft case, were not helpful in -- now, admittedly we're talking about a case that could be distinguished. It was a civil case, it was interim relief, but remarks which suggested that there was a public interest -- there was -- there was a public interest in having economically viable newspapers, and for that they had to sell -- they had to print things that the public were interested in, even if it was tittle-tattle.
Now, I know that in the Court of Appeal six months later, a different Court of Appeal slightly modified those used, but nonetheless it did rather discourage people like ourselves, senior staff in the Commissioner's office, from thinking there's a good -- you know, there's a possibility of prosecutions in this sort of case because we thought: well, the journalists have got a fairly easy route to establishing a public interest defence.
The world has moved on, of course, and maybe the courts won't see it that way.