Indeed, a trial that is only somewhat fair, and, therefore, somewhat useless, could actually be described as worse than useless. And the reason for that is because of the unintended consequence that will arise from a trial that is not conducted in a fair manner—the re-traumatisation of someone who has complained of a sexual violence incident will be repeated, and so the result, of course, would be a re-re-traumatisation of that person. This would take place if the trial itself were to be repeated in the event that an appeal were to take place on the basis that the trial was held in an unfair fashion in the first place. It would also happen in the instance of a trial that needed to be recommenced from scratch: a mistrial, in other words. There are a number of reasons that that could happen, including, for example, that some 12 months after the initial cross-examination had taken place prior to the trial, the judge or the fact-finder in the case might be different. These are deeply problematic consequences. Albeit, they may be unintended consequences; they would still be consequences, and this House should think very carefully before entering those on to the statute book—notwithstanding that such changes would go in alongside some that I emphasise are indeed excellent and worthy and will achieve the aims of the bill.