I'm not sure that I heard Inspector Nezan actually say that the registry had not been used to solve a single crime. I think what he said was that the registry had not been in place long enough and the data has not been compiled to draw that direct conclusion. I'm not sure that his remarks would be interpreted quite that way.
I want to move to judicial discretion. Under the present circumstance, of course, we don't have automatic registration. However, if I understand correctly, there's a reverse burden on the offender, because they would have been convicted at that point, to satisfy the court on a gross disproportionality test that his or her privacy interests outweigh the interests of protecting the public.
I'm wondering, Ms. Bethell, or the privacy people, if you can give me an example of where you think an offender would not properly be the subject of an order.