All three judges considered that the policy content of the issue and its implications were such that any change should be for the legislature. In 2000 the Court was asked to rule on the patentability of a known pharmaceutical compound for   new,   previously   unrecognised   pharmaceutical   use.⁸      The   Court   decided   that   the identification of a new use could constitute invention and that protection could be granted.   Addressing argument that it should be left for the legislative, the Court referred to recently assumed  international  treaty  obligations  and  the  fact  that  they  were  modifying  rules  of interpretation that had been made by judges. In  1986  the  Court  was  required  to  determine  whether  an  under-cover  police  officer,  when appearing as a prosecution witness, could be asked questions as to his true identity.⁹  On one side it was contended that the safety of police officers engaged in dangerous but necessary under-cover work justified their giving evidence under their assumed names.  On the other side it was said that the ability to ascertain true identity was part of the right to a fair trial – to test the case against him or her, or to make a defence.  In a 3 to 2 majority decision it was held that questions may be asked as to the true identity and that if there should be an inroad in an accused persons civil liberties in this respect, it should be made by the legislature.  And it was, later in the same year.¹⁰ In 1997 the Court, again by a majority of 3 to 2, declined to fashion a rule permitting an eye- witness (unknown to the accused) who had been found to have a genuine fear of retaliation, giving  evidence  anonymously.¹¹    The  protection  of  witnesses  from  intimidation  was  at  the time under consideration by the Law Commission and the majority considered that the matter was  not  so  urgent  that  the  Court  should  take  on  itself  development  of  such  a  rule.    The minority said the Court should do so, subject to safeguards, in light of the rights of witnesses and the increasing concern about intimidation. In  decisions  in  1998  and  2000¹²  the  Court  modified  the  defence  of  qualified  privilege  in defamation proceedings to extend it to certain political discussion published to a wide, even 8 Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2000] 2 NZLR 529 9 R v Hughes [1986] 2 NZLR 129 10 S13A Evidence Act 1908 inserted by s2 Evidence Amendment Act 1986 11 R v Hines [1997] 3 NZLR 529 12 Lange v Atkinson [1998] 3 NZLR 424 and [2000] 3 NZLR 385