Yes.
Starting from the fundamentals, first principles, that those trained to be presiding officers at summary trial are not judges, they are not lawyers, and the system is not designed to make them such, we have to be somewhat reasonable in making comparisons between folks who are legally and judicially trained versus those who are not. The value, the very essence, of the chain of command is that they understand the ethos and the requirements of morale and maintaining discipline, frankly, probably better than a lot of lawyers and judges do, and that's the reason they become the focal point. They don't receive formal training as in law school, go off to article and work in firms, etc., but they do get intensive training. From the moment everyone joins as recruits we are exposed to it, but certainly, to become a presiding officer, you have to go through training and a specific course that you must pass and then renew every five years to keep up to date on those skill sets. It is really just designed so that you're trained to recognize those issues of fairness, not to be an expert on constitutional or charter law. It is simply saying, “Wait a minute, that doesn't seem fair”, and that's the type of training we try to instill, both from a legal and an operational perspective.