Lastly, I want to speak, in particular, to the allowing of pre-recorded evidence. Earlier today, I came across a robust article on this very point written by the esteemed author Dr Emily Henderson when she held the role of Crown prosecutor and honorary research fellow at Auckland University. In the article, she examines the decisions of R v M and R v E both regarding the pre-recording of children's cross- and re-examination in criminal trials. She notes that the Court of Appeal stated that the sole advantage of permitting pre-recorded statements is to reduce the stress that long delays can cause to witnesses, thereby hastening the complainants recovering. But she notes that the court's analysis overlooks compelling evidence from Australia, as has been quoted, where some states have used pre-recording successfully for nearly 20 years, and the extensive international academic literature. She notes that Western Australia has pre-recorded child witnesses' entire evidence in sexual abuse cases, again since the early 1990s. Dr Henderson notes—and I agree—that, yes, it does reduce delays, it also reduces stress, and pre-recorded evidence can also provide for better quality evidence allowing complaints to recall the detail of situations earlier, which is also extremely helpful and a form of justice for the accused. It can also provide for better evidence because the pre-recording allows any prejudicial and inadmissible evidence to be extracted before it's prevented. 