After the committee had reported back to the House, as already outlined, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General highlighting concerns regarding changing to the definition the committee had arrived at, and that was "proven but insane". In particular, there was real concern raised around using that word "proven", and that goes right to the heart of requirements for mens rea and actus reus in order for a crime to be proven. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental legal principle underpinning the finding of not guilty on account of insanity, and that is that the defendant by definition is not guilty because of that mental element, that mens rea, and the element of the offence had not, in fact, been proven. On the other hand, the central purpose of the bill outlined by the member is to avoid the victim and their family hearing the words "not guilty". So this was a difficult balancing act, and at this point the bill was referred back to the select committee for a second time to have another crack at striking that balance and getting that right.