I know the defence counsel in that case quite well.
In my view—and I don't mean to prejudge the Court of Appeal—what Justice Gates was doing was looking out for the mental health of the jurors relative to the evidence they were hearing about the victims. That evidence didn't necessarily point to this accused as being the perpetrator. When you provide information for the jury that says that a child died in this offence, unless there's some dispute about whether or not the child died or simply disappeared, we know that a child died, or that a child was a victim of sexual abuse.
I don't think it biases the jury to say, “This is the type of testimony that you're likely to be hearing.” Again, as all of us have said, reminding people of their natural resiliency skills—monitoring their sleep, monitoring their appetite, getting a regular workout, maintaining their social contacts, and restricting their consumption of alcohol and other drugs.... I don't think that creates a bias.