Professor St-Hilaire, you said two things in the last intervention which I found to be very important.
The first is you said that what counts is if she made her own final decision. Of course she did here. There was a decision on September 4, and then it was clear that the Attorney General was not going to change it. Then you said about the deferred prosecution agreements that it was—I think I'm quoting you—“clear as black and white”, that you could not apply the national economic interest under that statute. It was clear that was not a factor that could be applied in that circumstance.
If the final decision was made by the DPP and the former attorney general, what possibly could be proper in conversation with the then attorney general after that time? Do you agree with Mr. Andrew Roman? He wrote:
The only reason for either [the Prime Minister or his senior staff] to discuss her...decision would be to encourage her to change it, without being seen to do so. This is damaging to the rule of law.
Do you agree with that?