Madam Chair, thank you very much.
I have one question for Mr. Walbourne, and I will split the remainder of my time with Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Walbourne, just to go back to our exchange on the rights and preferences of victims, which you very rightfully said are front and centre, in this particular case the instructions were really not to pursue an investigation. You also mentioned earlier in testimony that you wanted to convey to the victim, and I'm quoting you here, “You have been heard.”
I just wanted to circle back to the preference that you stated with respect to the victim and the fact that you went to the minister. Did you have instructions or did you see it as consent being given to approach the minister on this question? The adjunct to that is that you said you wanted to get top cover from the minister. You speculated that, in that case, there may well have been a change of opinion on the part of the victim to go forward more publicly into an investigation. It could just as easily have been the case that top cover—in this particular case, two men against presumably a female victim, although I'm not stating that for the record—could have been seen as pressure to change the victim's mind.
I just wanted to get your response on that, and then pass it on to my colleague Mr. Bagnell.