Sometimes, yes, because sometimes the victims were their husbands. And I know their children, and their children are the victims as well. So it depends on the individual circumstance.
If in fact it is someone who would be an ongoing risk and would victimize, the mechanisms that are in place and the steps that the judge has to go through presumably would preclude it from going past that gatepost of the chief justice. If someone is an ongoing risk or continues to be somehow causing that kind of harm, presumably that would be taken into account at that stage. For the very high-profile cases that have been trotted out at those points, I'm not aware that they've gone past that gatepost.
We certainly have no interest in seeing anybody victimized or re-victimized. The reality is, though, that this mechanism is in place to provide an opportunity for those...to have the faint hope that was suggested at the time it was introduced. I think the faint hope is more faint since the changes in the mid-nineties and the requirement of, for instance, a unanimous jury and that sort of thing.