Also, around judicial direction to address rape myths if they haven't been addressed through the process in the trial. That was a non-exhaustive list but I commend the select committee for their work on adding to some of the rape myths that were identified: looking at the things around where the suggestions that the way somebody dressed meant they wanted to be raped; that they abdicated their right to consent by the way they dressed or the fact that they've been flirting with somebody. We have recent analysis of a court case—truly shocking—where somebody had flirted with the defendant earlier in the evening and that was absolutely used to suggest that that person had consented to the rape, because they'd flirted and sat on their knees—clearly consent to having sex several hours later! In my world, those things don't flow on from each other. There's quite a few steps where you need to say yes or no along the way before you get to sex. And other examples around drinking and alcohol or drugs, and how that affects decision making. And it's really important that juries get that information about what is rape, because we know that there are a lot of myths in our society and that there's a lot of victim blaming, and that can lead to what I characterise and use inappropriately as miscarriages of justice, when juries make decisions based on myths, rather than an accurate understanding of the law and an understanding of what is rape.