You can well imagine that we went over that decision with great interest.
First of all, it was a four to three decision, but that was on the ex parte procedural issues. The majority ringingly endorsed the constitutionality of the DNA retroactive scheme and made very fine comments about the protections of privacy and all the other things that were in place.
Interestingly, the minority never disagreed with any of that. They just said the issue was the ex parte on the retroactive, and that's where they split four to three. We have yet to see a judge at any appellate level, I believe even at trial level, who has found anything unconstitutional in what we have done. There have been some issues about ex parte procedures, etc., but the constitutionality of this bill here, because it's building on what we have already, I would suspect is unchallengeable. Certainly we're highly confident that it isn't going to cause any difficulties.
The issue of Rodgers is coming up in April. If we ever get around to the parliamentary review, I'm sure it will be commented on by just about everybody who will come before whatever committee it is on the implications they see it has for the evolution of the system.