Print document
 27 of 94 
MR. TANSEY: He, of course, may I say does create more problems.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Well, I must say I have read Mr. E’s evidence. I did not think there
was much in it.
MR. TANSEY: If your Lordship is minded to exclude it.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: No, I was not necessarily saying that, but I did not think it would
require a great deal of time from the prosecution or the defence.
MR. TANSEY: The Crown do rely upon it and they place great reliance upon it and that is why ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: They place reliance on it. I do not think they necessarily place great
reliance on it.
MR. TANSEY: Your Lordship may hear the argument that is going to take place.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I will, no doubt. Are you taking the point it is not admissible?
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, I am saying we each know the basis on which it is relevant.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Are you taking a point that it is not admissible, because it is not
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, that is subject to the whole admissibility of the Portuguese evidence in the
first place.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You say the Portuguese evidence goes and Mr. E goes too.
MR. TANSEY: Indeed, yes.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, I follow. All right.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, may be you should hear the argument in due course.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: All right; if that is what it is I now can think about it; thank you very
much. I will read the file.
MR. TANSEY: May I just ask: has your Lordship received now a copy of Mr. Maher’s report?
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I have and I have read it.
MR. TANSEY: My Lord, there is a great bundle of exhibits.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I have not been given those.
MR. TANSEY: Copies will be coming in due course. There are two big bundles approximately
750/800 pages for the purpose of which I will need to refer to in support of our argument.
MR. AMLOT: If this particular exercise is going to take till the midday adjournment may we go until
two o’clock?