I think when you get a serious offence where there is a reverse onus provision, the reverse onus provision isn't necessary. There are still the three standard grounds: primary, secondary, and then the third ground, which is the protection of the public interest. Quite frankly, the reverse onus provision in most cases is not necessary to implement, in my respectful opinion, in terms of the experience. If the offence is so serious, if there are guns involved, it is very unlikely that someone is going to be released on bail. It's early, really, in the history of the types of offences where the reverse onus would be used. So the tool is there, but it may not be necessary.
That's the experience that I would suggest.