Clearly it was inspired by the Callow case, although that's not the only time this has occurred. We've heard from a number of witnesses--Mr. Hoover in particular--about the difficulty that crowns have in bringing these applications at the time of conviction, whether it be the third one under this legislation or because of concerns that this person is not rehabilitative. We have missed a number of opportunities. The Callow case is a classic case of bringing the application within the six-month time period and then not being able to do so after that. It may be a failure of the system because of the costs involved or a misapprehension of the facts by the prosecutor. Perhaps the application was brought and denied because of a judicial assessment of the facts. But we are left with the situation where we do not have the ability.
If you paid close attention to Mr. Hoover when he was testifying, he said the Corrections Services people have the greatest opportunity to make the assessment as to whether the offender is no longer a threat to society and is receiving treatment that's beneficial. Often the best evidence in support of a dangerous offender comes after the person has been incarcerated, because the experts and the officials who are treating him are the best ones to make that assessment in that period of time. It's a flaw in the legislation right now that we cannot do that. If you don't meet that six-month requirement--and it's very hard to get around that by arguing new evidence--you're stuck.
Although it's somewhat addressed in the recognizance section of this bill, it also allows us a greater opportunity to deal with individuals over a much longer period of time.