I want to explain why, because it's very connected to why the use of the word "proven" in the finding was so critical. Yes, I accept the select committee tussled with it for quite some time, both the first time and the second time, and the "proven" is really important. I'm not going to traverse the details of the cases, because I know that the victims, some of them, shared their stories for the very first time. So I want to honour them by not going into the detail of what occurred. But the reality is there is zero doubt about who committed the act. Yes, they were found not criminally responsible because they were found to be insane at the time that the act or offence occurred. But the very simple reality is that no one else is being looked for. And in the most harsh examples—and I refer to my constituent, the death of his brother, there was only one person who committed the act that took his brother's life. That's why, in terms of the finding, the removal of "not guilty" was critical from a policy perspective to deliver the intent of the bill, as was the word "proven". 