54 The defendant's initial claim to privilege was based on the fact of his possible retrial. That, he said, was the "only reason". However, it soon became apparent from his further initial answers that he was trying to isolate himself from the facts of the case by claiming that he did not know the accused and by then repeating, on many occasions, that he declined to answer the questions without giving any reasons. By simply declining to answer questions he may have been acting on advice given by his counsel, but he did not assist his case by refusing to give any reasons. Indeed, his real motive came to the fore when, perhaps inadvertently, he did give a reason, namely that he was not a rat, and by making it quite clear that whatever question was asked he would decline to answer it. At the trial, when he continued to decline to answer any questions, and having no doubt obtained further legal advice, he did say, when asked his reasons, that he had an appeal pending and he did not want to incriminate himself. However, I have no difficulty in considering that his answers given on the trial must be coloured by what he had previously said during the course of the voir dire. In my opinion, the claim for privilege, in so far it related to the possible retrial, was not taken for that purpose. It was taken because he did not want to give evidence against his co-accused on this trial.