I don't know that it will change anything simply because of the fact that a reverse onus bail or a Crown onus bail in, let's say, a gun case really doesn't change the outcome. We'll have to prepare the same, and judges will more or less apply the same principles.
If you have somebody who does or doesn't meet a definition that we can establish, a judge or a justice of the peace will still know that person has a lengthy history of prior offending. However we come up with a definition, it's probably going to involve some degree of prior offending for violent crimes.
If you have a bail hearing involving that type of individual, most judges are going to take the risk of reoffence very seriously and you'll be hard-pressed to come up with bail for that person unless you have an excellent plan in place and can satisfy the court that the individual is not a substantial likelihood to reoffend. It doesn't matter, honestly, whether it's a Crown onus or a reverse onus because my job as a defence lawyer will be exactly the same and the submissions I'll make will be exactly the same.
Having a definition in place I don't think will solve anything, although it may help people in the public understand a little bit about how judges do their work, which does have a benefit in terms of public awareness. I'm not sure it will have a benefit for public safety.