After that shopping list of thanks, let me turn to my first point about the new verdict for insanity. Now, you've heard from my colleagues about how this is a departure from our common law. I just want to touch on what accompanies this new verdict. The bill, as it was introduced, also recommended adding a two-step trial process to the Act, which would have ascertained whether the offences were proven first and whether the person was insane. The committee agreed that renaming the verdict was an important thing to do, but we felt that it could be better achieved and not require a new trial process by renaming the verdict to "proven but insane". That decision was difficult to make and it was something that was negotiated heavily, but I think it strikes the right balance between centring the victim in the process around giving the victim the kind of recognition that is appropriate when they have suffered at the hands of an offender in this way, but still promotes justice and transparency in those processes. The committee also made this change for the process of avoiding trial, which is used in some cases of insanity found in section 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act and that was, I think, the right decision to come to.