There are certain parts of that question that raise things that I'm not allowed to discuss publicly, but I don't think there is any—I'm sure there is an ongoing review. Basically, what I've said is that before SIAC, what one had were assessments made by intelligence officers who were giving evidence. Now, they all gave evidence in open court—that was when the appellant and the appellant's representatives were present—and it usually consisted of about five lines. When we went into closed session, they might be giving evidence that lasted all day. But basically, my cross-examinations and other special advocates' cross-examinations were trying to test the accuracy of assessments. We were never looking at original evidence. We never heard original witnesses. It was all based on assessments. So in a sense, it's opinion evidence all the time. And that's as far as one could go with that procedure.
On April 26th, 2007. See this statement in context.