What is relevant in the eyes of one person may not be relevant in the eyes of another person. It's a very difficult thing to be able to balance, in certain ways.
When Stinchcombe came to us, it really changed procedures completely at that time. I agree that it had a low threshold, but as we go through a process, you keep adding on and adding on, it seems. When you have now full disclosure, you have to give them the full cabinet and say “take a look”, which should not be necessary. You can run these defences when you get the information that is relevant to the case. The important thing is that you're not hiding anything that is of importance.
I couldn't tell our judges how to deal with applications relating to Stinchcombe. The independence of the judiciary is such that I could not do that. But at our coffee talks, we would say, well, we're going too far; this isn't necessary; you can get to the truth without having to disclose everything in sight.
A lot of it is due to the fact that there are certain lawyers out there whose duty is to their client, first and foremost, and what they're trying to do is get disclosure that gives them information about other unrelated matters—how the wiretaps were done, who else was involved, and maybe we can get even with this other guy because we found his name on this file through disclosure. There is this surreptitious kind of conduct that goes on. In my view, we should tighten up on Stinchcombe.