Effectively, what happened was that the court decided that, yes, the Supreme Court could take into account those updated reports, and then they made a decision as to whether, based on that decision, they were satisfied that the appellant posed a risk to the sexual safety of children. Two of the Supreme Court Justices said they believed he did not continue to pose a sexual safety risk; one decided, based on the facts, on the new evidence, that he did continue; one Justice considered that, actually, the evidence should be considered at the time and then, based on that, that the registration was appropriate; and one Justice did not decide on that issue. So, basically, she said, "Given her view"—this is paragraph 10 of the judgment—"the registration does not apply to the appellant and Justice Ellen France does not consider it necessary to express a view as to whether a registration order should have been made under section 9."