That in itself is very interesting, because the Government's position was that the person could not be a refugee, and yet all of the claims that were made to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2013, or at least the substantive ones, appear to have been debunked by the Government. They then stripped his refugee status on that basis, and the person then appealed. Now, of course, you have to respect due process and the right to appeal. But here's the question: the Government clearly had, on the one hand, a view that the person could not be a refugee, but they'd also accepted legal advice that they might be a protected person. Now, it's very difficult to see—and I'd love the Minister to have answered the question I asked earlier—how a person can no longer claim to be a refugee, in the eyes of the Crown at least, and yet the Crown also believes that he might be a protected person. There is a contradiction there in the Government's position. 