There are, actually, a lot of possible unintended consequences to this amendment.
One of the first problems we see is that there is an appeal period. You've been acquitted, and you have to go back to the court to say that the appeal period has gone by. The judge is not going to be keeping track, normally, as to whether an appeal has been filed from his acquittal.
Even if the acquittal period has gone by, on more than one occasion one has read about an extension of the time granted by the court so it can hear the appeal. There's a lot of uncertainty as to how the court would know there's been a final acquittal.
You could have major new procedures, which at the time of Jordan was not something we were promoting, if I can put it that way. Some of the records are used in many ways that are unanticipated, perhaps, or certainly not covered here. Drug recognition evaluators, for example, have to recertify every two years on the basis of a certain number of evaluations they have carried out, documenting that they were accurate. I believe it's in 80% of the cases, but I'm not sure. They need to keep those records in order to be recertified. There are court records, themselves, and the police records. Who do you advise to get it?
We understand the concern. The legislation, we thought, was fairly tightly drawn, since it was administration or enforcement of a law, and it's a criminal offence to use it for anything else. You can't analyze a substance for any other purpose than the purposes of that part, so you couldn't use it for DNA analysis, or anything like that.
It's for the committee, obviously, to decide whether we were right or wrong.