1 Friday, 13 June 2003
2 [Status Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The appellants entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.03 p.m.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honour. This is Case Number
8 IT-98-30/1-A, The Prosecutor versus Miroslav Kvocka, Mladjo Radic, Zoran
9 Zigic, and Dragoljub Prcac.
10 JUDGE HUNT: The appearances for the Prosecution.
11 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, my name is Anthony Carmona. Appearing
12 with me on behalf of the Prosecution is Ms. Norul Rashid, and our case
13 manager is Lourdes Galicia.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
15 Mr. Kvocka, we have a message here from your counsel, Mr. Simic,
16 saying that he has been unable to get his Visa. Apparently he put his
17 application in too late. And although the Registry offered him some
18 speedy service, he didn't respond. But he has said he doesn't wish to
19 raise any issue. Do you understand that?
20 THE APPELLANT KVOCKA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have
21 received the same information. And in the interests of efficiency, I have
22 no objection that we work in his absence.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.
24 For Mr. Radic.
25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my name is Toma Fila, and
1 I am Defence counsel for the accused Mladjo Radic. Thank you.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
3 For Mr. Zigic.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am Slobodan
5 Stojanovic, attorney from Belgrade. And I am Defence counsel for
6 Mr. Zigic.
7 JUDGE HUNT: And for Mr. Prcac.
8 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.
9 Attorney Jovan Simic representing Dragoljub Prcac.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, you had a great victory over
11 the Registry in relation to your fax machine. You got a copy of the
12 report, did you?
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. I'm
14 afraid I still haven't finished my job. I see that there are a number of
15 remarks regarding our lines in Belgrade, but I must inform the Court that
16 I have the best provider in Belgrade, and I think we will have to ask for
17 assistance to improve our lines of communication.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you might, and perhaps all counsel from
19 Belgrade, should note this: As a result of this investigation that was
20 carried out because of the troubles Mr. Stojanovic had, or at least the
21 Registry had with Mr. Stojanovic and his fax machine, the Registry has set
22 up KPN lines, the Dutch provider, which are very much more expensive, I
23 gather, than the ones they usually use. But because they get better
24 results with KPN, they are going to use KPN for all calls to Belgrade.
25 But there are problems, according to the investigation, with the quality
1 of the lines once they get to Belgrade. And the people in the Registry
2 who did this investigation have said it is impossible to get through if
3 you have an answering machine connected. And that it would be better if
4 you had a dedicated fax line, that you didn't use it for any other
5 purpose, and that the facsimile machine should be set on auto answering.
6 With all of those things, one hopes that they will do better in
7 getting through. But Mr. Stojanovic, there's still a problem, on the 23rd
8 of May, they attempted twice to send you a letter from the senior legal
9 officer. They attempted again on the 26th of May. And at that stage,
10 they gave up. And they are using KPN lines, by the way. They gave up,
11 and they sent it to you by registered post.
12 Now, according to the registered post system, there should be a
13 receipt that you should sign when you receive it. But they haven't got
14 that receipt back yet. Did you get a letter from the senior legal officer
15 dated the 23rd of May?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did receive it on
17 the 9th of June. It was a holiday here in Holland. And on that same day,
18 half an hour later, I sent an email that I certainly accept what the legal
19 officer suggested, and I considered it to be very useful for the Defence.
20 That is why hard copy was received also on the 10th of June of this
21 communication of mine. But that was just an announcement as to what I
22 would do. Indeed, today, I filed a confidential addendum to Zoran Zigic's
23 motion filed on the 22nd of August last year, so the first submission
24 pursuant to Rule 115 was filed by me today.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Did you sign a receipt for the letter? I think we
1 better get our procedure sorted out. Was there a receipt there for you to
2 sign when the letter was delivered to you by post?
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I did, Your Honour. I think
4 this is a rule that the post office does not always apply, but this time
5 I'm quite sure that I did sign it. It was on the 9th of June, maybe
6 around 10.00 or 11.00 in the morning.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Well, perhaps it's only four days later, and we'll
8 eventually receive it. But you realise that you had not dealt with the
9 issue of due diligence, which is one you must establish, that even though
10 the evidence may not have been immediately available to you, it could not
11 have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
12 There is also a problem that in your first motion, you had not
13 produced the material you wanted tendered itself. You had only given us
14 your version of what you thought that it meant. But we've got to have the
15 actual material itself. Have you repaired that omission?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was just referring
17 to that material that is linked to our first motion, and that was filed
18 today. I think that I have fully implemented your suggestions today.
19 JUDGE HUNT: How about the due diligence point? Have you
20 demonstrated -- it doesn't appear from the document itself very readily
21 anyway - that this material could not have been discovered through the
22 exercise of due diligence on your part during the course of the trial? Do
23 you realise that that is what you must establish?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we did provide a
25 response in our submissions to that question. To what extent that will be
1 acceptable, it is up to you.
2 JUDGE HUNT: I don't want to argue it here. I just wanted to be
3 sure that you understood you had to do that in order to have this
4 application under Rule 115 considered. If you say you have, well, I
5 accept that, and we'll see what you have produced.
6 Are there any other matters that you wish to raise while you're on
7 your feet?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The only thing that I could say
10 is that it seems to me that a ruling is missing on the part of the
11 pre-Appeals Judge regarding a question that we raised in reference to
12 errors in the transcript and the judgement, namely on the 7th of March,
13 2002, you made a ruling regarding that matter. The Prosecution and the
14 Defence did achieve some agreement and informed the Chamber about it, that
15 there were certain errors in the transcript. But it is not just an error
16 in the transcript, but it is literally quoted in the judgement. And
17 regarding the wording of your ruling that I mentioned, of the 7th of
18 March, 2002, it seems to me that a decision on the part of the Chamber is
19 required prior to the actual appeals hearing. That is, the parties have
20 established that there was an error in the transcript, and that transcript
21 was erroneously quoted in the judgement. That is paragraph 584 of the
23 JUDGE HUNT: I haven't got a copy of what was said on the 7th of
24 March, but I am doubtful that I would have said that is a matter for me to
25 decide. I don't know why you say that I haven't decided it. That is sort
1 of thing that will be dealt with at the hearing, in my view. If there's a
2 measure of agreement, then it will be taken as having been noted that
3 there was an error in the transcript which found its way into the
4 judgement. I don't see that you need anything more than that, if that's
5 what has been agreed. But I'm afraid, there has been a lot of water under
6 the bridge in the 15 months since then, apart from the fact that we have
7 about four appeals all starting with the letter K, which I managed to get
8 sometimes hopelessly confused in my mind when I'm dealing with these
9 pre-appeal matters. But if you feel that there has been some omission on
10 the part of the Appeals Chamber to decide it, then I suggest you put in a
11 document saying so, and we'll go back and we'll have a look.
12 What was happening on the 7th of March? Was that a Status
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was a decision of
15 yours. I could just read a paragraph from it.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: "Considering that where the parties are in
18 agreement that the transcript of the proceedings contains errors, there is
19 no bar to having those amendments made to the transcript prior to the
20 hearing of the appeal by the Appeals Chamber."
21 [Interpretation] I would like to point out. It's not just an
22 error in the transcript, but also an error in the judgement because that
23 same quote was copied literally in paragraph 584. And in a sense, it is
24 an introduction to Zigic's responsibility.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Stojanovic, you've said that three times, and I'm
1 sure you will be saying it again. But my point is this: If that has been
2 said, then there is an agreement between the parties that the transcript
3 was wrong. That's as far as we can take it. The transcript that we are
4 supplied with is called an uncorrected version. I've never seen a
5 corrected version. But nevertheless, everybody will know, and you will
6 have in your submissions, I assume, a reference to the fact that the
7 transcript has been agreed to be wrong, and that the Trial Chamber has
8 incorporated that error in its judgement.
9 Now, I don't think there's anything more that can be done at this
10 stage. But the appeal will proceed upon that understanding.
11 Now, is there anything more you want to add to that?
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We just felt
13 that it wasn't purely up to the parties to determine what the transcript
14 should be like. We feel that the Chamber is the meritorious body. It is
15 after all -- the transcript is a document of the Chamber, and we felt that
16 the Chamber should decide. And I had the impression that a prior decision
17 was needed. But I don't feel that that is absolutely essential and that
18 it could not be dealt with together when the entire appeal is heard.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Stojanovic, for the years that I sat on the Trial
20 Chamber here, I used to read the transcript every day to check that at
21 least what I had said or what was said to me was correctly recorded. And
22 every day, I put in a list of what I saw to be corrections. Now, they are
23 probably somewhere in a file. But I have never seen a corrected version
24 of the transcript. So just don't worry about it. That's what happens,
25 I'm afraid, in this place. You will be protected at the hearing.
1 Now, is there anything else you want to raise?
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.
4 Mr. Fila, have you got anything that you want to raise?
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honour, we have
6 received a submission yesterday, a motion, in which the Prosecution is
7 asking to disclose to us some new material by the end of June. And we are
8 concerned by the duration of these proceedings and how long will this
9 disclosure of materials continue? It's not something that only I
10 personally am concerned by, because it is not me that is in question but
11 the person for whom I am Defence counsel, and who, of course, is
12 interested in having a speedy solution because in my view, a fair trial
13 implies a speedy trial. And I had a discussion on that subject with
14 Mr. Cassesse in his day.
15 So what I am worried about, and this is something that I referred
16 to the last time, if Mr. Zigic's trial should be separated from us, I
17 would be in favour because we really don't believe that we can receive
18 anything that would be useful to us. I don't like to use strong words in
19 life generally, but I fear that this will never stop. We keep -- we will
20 keep on receiving unnecessary documents. Then I sit around reading them,
21 and of course as I say, it's not that I'm wasting time. That doesn't
22 matter. And then if I say that something is important out of those
23 materials, I'm told by the Prosecution that it isn't. First I'm told it
24 is significant, then I'm told it isn't. So I have a feeling that somebody
25 is playing a game with me and my time, and the time of the Chamber.
1 If I were to do that, I would have been found in contempt at least
2 three times by now, if I were to say that time and again. And I'm sorry
3 for using your time to say this. Either there should be a severing of the
4 case, because we're no longer interested in these unnecessary documents
5 from the Prosecution. So to wind up, the only way to put an end to this
6 is to fix a date when we will have the appeals hearing and when these
7 materials will stop being disclosed to us.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Fila, you have been around this Tribunal for a
9 very long time, and I'm sure this has been said to you before. But the
10 fact that the Prosecution provides you with material under Rule 68 is not
11 a concession by them that it will exculpate your client. What they say
12 is: "Here is material which is capable of being exculpatory," so there's
13 no games in it. They are, perhaps, erring on the side of caution. I
14 don't know. If you find that the material they supply to you is not
15 exculpatory, then that's that. They don't want to be accused, I should
16 think, of having failed to supply something which you suddenly see to be
17 exculpatory which they may have had a doubt about. That's all they're
19 The problem with the Prosecution's approach, and I'm not trying to
20 criticise anybody in particular, but they constantly go along to the duty
21 judge with an application for a warrant to seize material. It's not just
22 in relation to this case. Some reason upstairs there, they don't
23 understand that everybody is trying to close this Tribunal down, and they
24 are still investigating other cases. And by doing the investigations, and
25 they seize documents, they have an obligation, and this has been made very
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 clear to them in a number of cases, they have an obligation to check that
2 material to see if any of it is capable of being exculpatory in relation
3 to any of the matters which have been through the Tribunal. So that's why
4 it constantly comes.
5 At the time that the case and the appeal is listed for hearing,
6 then they no doubt will still continue to send it to you even after the
7 appeal is over. But you need not concern -- we are not waiting until they
8 finish in order to list the case. The problem is, of course, the
9 applications for fresh evidence. So that's why that's happening.
10 Now, Mr. Simic, is there anything that you want to raise?
11 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have nothing new to
12 state, except for saying that we would express our concern over the
13 prolongation which seems to us not by chance, but intentional. And that
14 if we continue in this way, then we might be here during the time that
15 we're pensioned off, if the Prosecution persists. So we would like to
16 have scheduled our oral arguments or to know when the Prosecution will
17 fulfill its duties. And it should have fulfilled that duty a long time
18 ago. Let us not forget the part of the documents were in their possession
19 before the end of trial, so all we would like to say is we would like to
20 know when this is going to be for our defendants, the people that have
21 been accused, and who are waiting to hear their sentence or culpability
22 being established or not established. Thank you -- pronounced guilty or
24 JUDGE HUNT: I am very grateful that it's not my task to fix dates
25 for hearings; it's the President's tasks. It's not an easy one, and he is
1 certainly pressing to get this end two other appeals, which have been
2 sitting here for some time bogged down with Rule 115 matters. He's very
3 anxious to get them on. So you will get the earliest possible hearing
5 Now, Mr. Carmona, I'm sorry that the Prosecution has been left
6 last this time, but nevertheless are there any matters you would like to
8 MR. CARMONA: Certainly, in fact, Your Honours. In relation to
9 the whole issue with regard to separation of this appeal, the Prosecution
10 is of the view that the exigency of justice and the particular
11 circumstances of this case would, in fact, initiate -- or to initiate, in
12 fact, a hearing together. And in fact we do not think, for example, that
13 the ends of justice would be met by any separation of appeal.
14 JUDGE HUNT: There is no motion on for a separation any longer.
15 There was one at the time when Mr. Zigic and Mr. Stojanovic parted
16 company, but that was rejected because to start with, Mr. Stojanovic came
17 back into the fold, and the matter is proceeding somewhat fitfully, but
18 they are all running together.
19 MR. CARMONA: Secondly, Your Honours, I wish to in fact
20 categorically disabuse my friends' minds with regard to in fact any kind
21 of delay on the part of the Prosecution. We are as anxious to expedite
22 this matter. We do appreciate, for example, the fact that this particular
23 Tribunal is a type of judicial animal that has a life-span. And we
24 certainly in fact want this matter expedited. But each particular case
25 has its particular idiosyncrasy, and in these circumstances you will
1 appreciate, Your Honours, that we have had cases, for example, that are
2 going on presently. Cases that, in fact, have in fact since completed,
3 like Stakic; cases in fact in fortuna, like Meakic; and cases as I said in
4 fact that are in fact in the process, like Gruban, where, in fact,
5 material is, in fact, being generated time and time again. And as much
6 as, in fact, for example, the Prosecution's responsibility may appear to
7 be onerous, sometimes burdensome, sometime weary legged, we do have a
8 responsibility to get these particular documents and material and
9 determine whether, in fact, there is anything that can assist the
10 Defence. And Your Honours, I remember very categorically, in the second
11 Status Conference, you had, in fact, told counsel in no uncertain terms
12 on -- in fact, on the Friday, the 14th Status Conference, at page 51, you
13 said essentially that our obligation to produce material which may prove
14 to be exculpatory. The Prosecution does not by mention in these documents
15 admit that they are in fact exculpatory. Secondly, Your Honours have
16 indicated --
17 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Carmona, I'm sorry to interrupt. But I've said
18 all that already. You don't have to tell me. I've pointed that out to
19 the accuseds' counsel myself. You don't have to repeat it.
20 MR. CARMONA: I'm indeed grateful to the observation of Your
21 Honour. In any event, Your Honours, the bottom line is, in fact, we have,
22 in fact, attempted to accelerate this entire process. And I can say now
23 that only, in fact, this morning I got assurance from, in fact, the ISU,
24 that they are, in fact, as much as, in fact, the report indicated that
25 they would complete the process by the end of next week or end of next
1 week. They indicated very categorically that they are in a position to
2 complete the process but Tuesday of next week. We, in fact, are not
3 saying by any stretch of the imagination that the process would finish at
4 the end of the month. We are saying, in fact, that at maximum it would
5 finish at the end of the month. But we are hoping, in fact, to finish the
6 entire process by at least a week before the end of the month.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Carmona, having put forward your policy
8 statement, may I repeat what I have said on several earlier occasions,
9 somebody in the Prosecution, and you can guess who, has to do something
10 about the sharing of resources there. That we are now in a stage where
11 this Tribunal is in its exit strategy, I think is the buzzword, and that
12 all of these teams that keep on investigating new cases should be put to
13 work helping to run the current ones. And I'm talking particularly about
14 the Rule 68 obligations to search this material for exculpatory matter.
15 We have been told so often by the Prosecution that you have limited
16 resources to do it. The time has come for somebody in the Prosecution
17 office to do something about that and to move some of the huge resources
18 you have back into running these trials, rather than chasing other
20 MR. CARMONA: Yes.
21 JUDGE HUNT: And we have this problem every time that the question
22 of Rule 68 and exculpatory material arises, we get a plea from the
23 Prosecution: "We do not have the resources to do more than one case at a
24 time." Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: That's not good
25 enough. I've had my say. Do you want to say anything in response?
1 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, in fact, it is not my intention to
2 indicate policy here, but I can tell you, in fact, from my -- our
3 prospective in the Kvocka team, we, in fact, are making great attempts to
4 ameliorate the situation by attempting to get individuals to work extra
5 hours. I can tell you, in fact, in relation to this particular matter,
6 there were some people down at the beach, but they are in a beach house,
7 doing searches on Monday during the holidays. And as a result, we are in
8 a position to say in relation to this particular matter that we can
9 complete the exercise before the end of this month. You know, and this is
10 essentially, in fact, our position.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Carmona, I'm not criticising the team. I'm
12 criticising the system. The systemic failure to provide sufficient
13 resources particularly in relation to exculpatory material which must be
14 provided under Rule 68.
15 Another problem that I see, as a pre-Appeal Judge, a continuing
16 series of pleas by the Prosecution for extra time to do things because you
17 have so much work on your hands. Now, again, I don't criticise the
18 particular teams in the Appeals Chamber section of the OTP. I believe you
19 all try your best. But the time has come for somebody to move some
20 greater resources into that section so that you can keep up. And I think
21 that the Prosecution is going to find that that plea will fall on very
22 deaf ears, but that's the only way we can get these matters on.
23 So there must be some consideration given by somebody in the
24 Office of the Prosecutor to moving some resources from where they are now
25 not really necessary to where they really are desperately needed.
1 Now, that's as far as I'll take it.
2 Do you want to say anything in support of this application for an
3 extension of pages in the last filing by the Prosecution? You signed it,
4 I notice, on behalf of Mr. Staker.
5 MR. CARMONA: Your Honours, I'm a bit puzzled with regard to --
6 JUDGE HUNT: It's an application for an extension of four pages to
7 the further response that you were given leave to file.
8 MR. CARMONA: Yes, indeed, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE HUNT: May I point out to you at least two things in
10 relation to the documents being filed: First, despite all the warnings
11 about not trying to have the last say on matters which you do not have a
12 right to have a last say on, there is at least a page and a half of this
13 document which deals precisely with a matter that you had no right to
14 address on. The second thing is, and the application for the extension of
15 pages is directed to the second issue that you were given leave to respond
16 further on, the one about the admissibility of prior consistent
18 MR. CARMONA: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: It is very clear from what I said in that decision
20 that the assistance we sought from you was not to tell us what is and what
21 is not admissible as a prior consistent statement. You've got to accept
22 that some of us had some experience with these sorts of things before.
23 What we wanted to know from you was what your attitude was as to whether
24 any situation arose during the course of the trial which would have
25 warranted the admission of such a document, such as recent -- an
1 allegation of recent invention. And there's not a word about that
2 anywhere in this long document. So you've squandered, if I may say, the
3 space you've got. There are, in fact, two paragraphs that are in
4 identical terms which takes about half a page. And my present inclination
5 is to refuse the application and make you do what you're meant to do.
6 Now, is there anything you want to say about that?
7 MR. CARMONA: Your Honours, we were of the view that the
8 particular -- the particular decision was such that warranted, in fact, a
9 response with regard to the rule of previous consistent statements in the
10 context of what kind of weight would need to be attached to that
11 particular document.
12 JUDGE HUNT: You had the feeling, did you, that that's what we
13 needed assistance on, that we didn't know that when a prior consistent
14 statement was admissible?
15 MR. CARMONA: We were of the view, also, that, in fact, a
16 particular trial never, in fact, arose --
17 JUDGE HUNT: Why didn't you say so. There's not one word of that.
18 And that's the assistance we wanted. You are the people who at this stage
19 are far more familiar with the issues that arose at the trial than any of
20 us is. And what we will have to do is to get our legal officers to read
21 through the whole of the trial, to find whether that issue arose, because
22 you have given us no assistance. Neither, of course, has the appellant,
23 and I accept that. But the Prosecution has got a duty to assist as well.
24 MR. CARMONA: Yes.
25 JUDGE HUNT: And that's the assistance that I gave you the right
1 to file a new document about. And you haven't done it.
2 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, the problem with the particular -- this
3 particular, in fact, decision is that, in fact, it actually came into our
4 possession late on Friday afternoon, and, in fact, we weren't able to look
5 at it from Tuesday, so we were indeed pressed for time in an attempt to
6 meet the deadlines, we had to, in fact, respond quickly and expeditiously.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Don't you think it might have been a good idea, and
8 I'm sorry to interrupt you, and I'm sorry to the interpreters for doing
9 so, but don't you think it might have been a good idea to have read it
10 before you had rushed off and poured over some old textbooks to give us
11 something which I'm sure every lawyer in this building would know?
12 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, in fact at paragraph 43 of that
13 particular response, in fact, we did state our position with regard, in
14 fact, to that particular piece of evidence. And I refer, specifically,
15 to, in fact, the last four lines of that particular paragraph.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, that's all you had to say. If you think
17 that's a sufficient answer, that's all you had to say. I'm afraid
18 somebody is going to have to sit down and do a document that fits in
19 within the limit because I think probably, there's a certain degree of
20 irritation in my voice, and you may be assured I was irritated when I sat
21 down and started reading a page and a half of material that you were not
22 entitled to even raise. Even after I had said in the previous decision
23 "you must not try always to get the last word on something that you're not
24 entitled to have the last word on."
25 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, if, in fact, the Court is minded, and
1 in an attempt to assist the Court, we are, in fact, prepared, if, in fact,
2 we are allowed, to possibly, in fact, respond by filing an addendum to
3 this particular document within a particular short time period.
4 JUDGE HUNT: You don't get out of page references by just putting
5 in two or three documents, each of which fills out the page limit, so you
6 get three times the page limit. What I'm saying is you've got to use a
7 little bit of discipline to answer something --
8 MR. CARMONA: Yes.
9 JUDGE HUNT: -- within the limit. You realise, don't you, that
10 the previous document you had filed in which you had set out what your
11 reply was you dealt with five issues in a little over two pages. Now, I
12 limited you to two issues, and you've taken 14 pages to answer it.
13 MR. CARMONA: Your Honours, I don't know if, in fact, you could
14 assist us in this regard. But to indicate which of those pages, in fact,
15 you're referring to particularly.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Paragraphs 4 to 6 are irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is a
17 complete repetition. That makes up a page and a half, to start with.
18 MR. CARMONA: Yes. And, Your Honour, in fact, this is the
19 particular pages of contention you're referring to, particularly?
20 JUDGE HUNT: Those are the ones that are irrelevant. What I'm
21 saying is that you seek the additional pages because you say you wanted to
22 spend a lot of time on the second issue. And if that sentence that you've
23 referred to is your answer which is the only assistance you're going to
24 give us, then you could have said that in four lines.
25 MR. CARMONA: But certainly, Your Honours, it is our intention, in
1 fact, to assist this Court in a proper determination of the issues. And
2 if --
3 JUDGE HUNT: You certainly weren't assisting us the last time.
4 I'm not blaming you, but I spent a lot of time on that last motion because
5 the Prosecution had failed completely to give us any assistance as to why
6 it should get a right of response. And then I get a second one like this
7 which does not appear on the face of it to give us assistance except
8 perhaps for those four lines. So you can see why there's a certain
9 irritation involved. It is not, if I may say so, they type of assistance
10 to which we have become accustomed from the Prosecution.
11 MR. CARMONA: Your Honour, in the circumstances, if, in fact, the
12 Court is minded with leave of the Court, if it is possible, in fact, that
13 we can possibly refile a more concise document consistent with, in fact,
14 your concerns, and in an attempt to assist this Court, we certainly would
15 like a period of time in which to respond, because as I said on the last
16 occasion, just a while ago, Your Honours, in fact, it was, in fact, a very
17 pressing response in the context of the holiday period.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Carmona, I know it was Whit Monday. It's a
19 holiday I'm not used to having. I must confess it's very nice to be in
20 Europe to get these extra holidays. But nevertheless, bearing in mind
21 that you were being given leave to file another document in order to
22 remove the irrelevant material from the first and to expand by assisting
23 us on this second issue, the fact that you did neither of those seems to
24 me that it should not have taken you very long at all.
25 MR. CARMONA: Your Honours, you will appreciate that in relation
1 to this particular paragraph, we did, in fact, refer in the footnote to
2 pieces of the evidence that, in fact, supported our position. But be that
3 as it may, Your Honour, I think, in fact, if Your Honour is minded, and,
4 in fact, we seek leave in this regard to, possibly, in fact, file a more
5 concise document --
6 JUDGE HUNT: Next Thursday?
7 MR. CARMONA: That would be fine.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Very well, then. Well, then, the leave that you seek
9 will be refused, and I'll give you until Thursday to put in a document
10 that does comply with the practice direction. And would you tell those
11 who are responsible for this that we do really need more assistance than
12 we're getting.
13 Is there anything else to be raised?
14 MR. CARMONA: Right. I'm much obliged.
15 JUDGE HUNT: I'll adjourn.
16 --- Whereupon the Status Conference adjourned
17 at 3.42 p.m.