I agree.
My point is that the generality about what a wrongful conviction is isn't just an issue with the bill as a whole; it is an issue that strikes at the heart of every single clause. Again, I have to part company with my colleague on that point.
On the issue of pardons, I found that interesting, because I believe that somebody gave testimony about that. I can't recall who it was, but they gave evidence about somebody whose life had dramatically changed subsequent to their conviction. If we want to really tie it up with the amendment, in that case the person may or may not have appealed.
Let's say they didn't appeal, because in their view they were factually guilty and morally guilty, but 30 or 40 years later, they have changed their life, and they've not had a single offence since then. My understanding is that ordinarily a person in that case would seek a pardon. As to the legal effect of the pardon, the precise wording escapes me, but it essentially says that although you were convicted, you will no longer have a criminal record.
Did I say that properly, in your view?