It's a little bit like having spent most of my career as a detective, something that—Mr Mitchell, as a dog handler, never probably made those lofty heights. But he will sort of mention that detectives probably didn't work at night as much as the dog handlers, but we had to learn a little bit more. One thing that I did do is also train detectives at the same time. One of the things that always confused young detectives that came through when we were training them was this whole area around assaults and trying to define what was the assault. It used to be that we would set questions. How we'd train detectives is we'd do what we call a criminal liability, where you'd outline a situation where they would have to go through and determine what offences had been committed. Of course, the basis of every offence is an intent, and where there's—in establishing any case. Mr Bridges was here before. As he will know, having been a very good Crown solicitor in his day, you don't really take—with the exception of a few cases where there is strict liability, and they are relatively few, you do need to actually establish an intent in all these cases. So, of course, what you'd be then asking, having established there was an intent to assault, an intent to do whatever—that was always an important part of the offence—then you would start breaking down, and you've heard some of the previous speakers talking about the hierarchy of offending. That hierarchy of offending was determined by the intent and by the injury. Most of it was overly complicated and remains overly complicated. My belief is more discretion by, shall we say, well-trained judges is probably what the system—under certainly, clearly, the necessity for guidelines. 