This bill, in a lot of ways, appears to be dealing with the contortions that the courts have been going through in trying to wrestle with three strikes, when the judges don't entirely agree with the law as it has been written. I note that the recent Supreme Court case of Fitzgerald and the Queen wrestled with this exact issue. One of the judges was of the view that the language, scheme, and purpose of the three-strikes regime do not allow for the interpretation reached by the majority—i.e., that the law as written in section 86D(2) would not be subject to any exception. However, the majority of the Supreme Court were of the view that the appellant's sentence of seven years' imprisonment went well beyond excessive punishment and would shock the conscience of properly informed New Zealanders, and was therefore so disproportionately severe as to breach section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And therefore they held that section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act changed the interpretation of this section.