People have been saying that at the committee today, and I think they're cherry-picking words in the legislation. I don't think that's accurate.
The proposed section actually says if “the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person”. So it's not just brutal, first of all. Second, it then goes on to say that in deciding whether to define the person as high risk, which dovetails back to brutal, the court has to look at a whole host of circumstances, which include “any pattern of repetitive behaviour”, for example, “the accused's current medical condition,” and “the opinions of experts who have examined the accused”.
It's actually not going to be based on just one brutal event. It's not what the statute says, and it's not accurate.