On a procedural issue, especially post-Johnson, we heard a number of crowns in our consultations suggest that a new strategy used by defence counsel in dangerous offender proceedings was beginning to manifest itself. Specifically, if the offender chose not to participate actively in the psychiatric assessment, because the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt for the criteria portion of the hearing, it became exceedingly difficult to prove based on the offender's actual condition today. What they would have to do is resort to more forensic-type analysis of his past record, especially if the offender was, either by desire or incapability, unable to participate actively in the prior studies as well. It was actually in some cases perhaps close to impossible to achieve the objective of being beyond reasonable doubt.
So the presumption will definitely help. It will draw out the offender in that situation. They will have to come forward and make their case. They will not be able to go mute. They will not be able to stop participating. And certainly again because of the narrowness of scope of the offences, this is carefully tailored to target those offenders who clearly on the surface, on the face of the facts, would fit ab initio that definition of a dangerous offender.