Thank you and welcome, Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Davidson.
Let me get directly to a couple of points that you raised, which I think are critically important. The first is with respect to the release of documents that might have been collected during a review you were doing on an alleged breach, or whatever it might be. There is a complete exemption being suggested on the release--thou shall not disclose--in this legislation. I'm a little troubled by the concept of absolute exemptions as opposed to having the normal situation in which we would have an injury test or a public interest override that might be provided.
You refer to the current situation in which the approval of a judge must be sought for release of documents. I'm not aware of the standards that a judge applies in making that decision, but you've also suggested that perhaps with the commissioner could lie the responsibility to apply the normal test of injury or public interest override. I'd like to get further information from you on the importance of allowing that discretion under strict conditions.
The other situation about which I'd benefit from your comments is with respect to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It's not clear to me what problem such an office is meant to deal with. We know that the Attorney General remains the chief law enforcement officer of the crown, with quasi-judicial responsibility to conduct prosecutions in an impartial and independent way. I'm wondering if you're aware of any situation where the failure--if there has been a failure--or the conduct of a prosecution by the Attorney General under his prosecution service has arisen. Is that a problem? Is there something we're trying to remedy by having an independent so-called Director of Public Prosecutions?