I guess what I'd say is this: the cases that I'm aware of where the Supreme Court has spoken about the right to confront one's accuser have to do with situations where, for example, the accused wants to personally examine a complainant or a witness in a case, and that's been held to be constitutional in appropriate circumstances.
We're not talking about the accused personally cross-examining, confronting the accuser literally, in court, but the ability to confront the allegations that have been made against a person.
It was my understanding as well—I wasn't aware of New Zealand—that this provision has been put in place in the United Kingdom, and has been—
Pardon?