{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026442307692307692, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009615384615384616, 'mean_word_length': 5.132352941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constitution of Panel

The panel initially comprised two medical practitioners and three lay members. When the hearing resumed in 2007, only one of the medical practitioners (an orthopaedic surgeon) remained. Counsel, on appeal, suggested that this limited and called into question the expertise that the panel brought to the decision, which, as a result, required the Court to pay less deference to its conclusions.