I'm going to quickly traverse through the stages of the verdict, because I think it's important to keep that on the record, to see where we've been. Where we started at on the spectrum of the verdict definition was, first of all, it started with "not guilty on account of insanity", and, for the reasons I've already specified, that was the whole purpose of the bill—that, to the ears of victims and their family in the courtroom, was so offensive. That was the purpose, to try and change that. Where the committee initially landed was "proven but insane", and while we got advice and did a good job in that space of trying to balance, we had the Chief Justice not agreeing with that. So after the bill had been reported back to the House, we found ourselves in the unusual position of it being referred back to select committee for the Justice Committee to once again take into account that advice from the Chief Justice, and see how we can provide for, particularly, that word "proven" that we were using and the fact that it could not be "proven" if there was no mental element or mens rea due to the mental health or a specified insanity of the person standing on trial. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental principle underpinning the finding of "not guilty on account of insanity", and that is that the defendant, by definition, is not guilty because the mental element of the offence has not been proven. As my learned colleague Duncan Webb was attempting to do earlier, even changing the title of the bill in order for "offenders" to be removed and change that for "persons", because, technically, they are not an offender if they have not been found guilty—but I think we'd had enough time debating the infinite details of this bill, and I encouraged him that we should just let the bill pass. I'm sorry, but you know never to let an academic hold things up.