I think you already heard my comments to some extent. I think it is something that makes sense. Without it, what is the rationale for non-inclusion? As we know, crowns are busy, they're trying to get convictions. There's significant advantage to having a guilty plea over a lengthy trial, and this became an easy marker for some to trade.
I'm not going to say that practice was practised by all, but there were certainly some crowns who did that, and of course the simple oversights that occurred. There's not a rational basis there.
A rational basis would be if everybody were required to apply and then the judges would say whether a case is exceptional or not. It wasn't even that. Here we didn't even have that. The automatic inclusion overcomes that gap, overcomes that problem, so that people won't be slipping through the cracks through advertence or inadvertence, or people following the easiest path at the courtroom door.