My question is for Mr. Rahim.
In the G case, the Supreme Court said the case was going too far by a blanket exclusion and required some case-by-case analysis at least, to meet the test of hope, that there would be a safety valve, to a certain extent. The majority stated, and I quote: “Individual assessment does not need to perfectly predict risk — certainty cannot be the standard.”
Does that mean that some unpredictability with mental disorders, as with any other illnesses, does not invalidate, in the court's view, the perspective of case-by-case analysis?