I think that's very fair to say. Again, this is an exercise of discretion by charge layers and those who prosecute as to what they deal with. Again, by and large the system is intended to demonstrate fairness to both the accused and the system, and that fairness element is critical in both sets of tribunals, at summary trial and court martial. If the system isn't perceived as being fair, it's not doing its job.
This option 3 we're talking about right now is really an attempt to try to strike a balance. Is it the only balance that could be struck? Certainly not. Is there some judgment being exercised in what's currently on the table? Absolutely. Could others take a different view as to what should and should not be on that list? Absolutely. But the principle we've used in developing this list is what Parliament has determined from an objective perspective to be the most minor offences under the code. That's a grouping we've put in there, trying to rely on some principle to highlight what would go on the list and what would not.
I certainly don't dispute that we could have a long debate as to whether or not other offences in the code that Parliament has objectively said could be much more serious could also be on that list, but that's the option we put on the table so that we could articulate a principle as to why the offences were there.