A number of people have come to the committee and said that they have a problem with this assessment being that the act that took place was brutal and that's what they're going to use to determine whether or not a person should be released, but as I point out to many people, that's not actually what the sections says. It says as follows:
the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature
—this is the key part—
as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person
It's more like a twofold test, but it doesn't stop there. The section then goes on to give a range of things that a judge can look at to determine whether or not it's going to meet that twofold test. Included among them are the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.
So it's actually not.... I mean, just saying that this crime was brutal, and that crime wasn't is not how the assessment is made. Is that correct?