Thank you.
I'm speaking in favour of the amendment for three reasons. I won't repeat what Mr. Holland or Mr. Davies said--or maybe I will a bit. The first is consistency with what we heard as evidence in our own hearings. Even though they weren't on this bill, they were on our review of the act. I think these amendments are consistent with our evidence, and I like to be consistent with evidence. I think that's part of our process.
The second thing is that while I agree with Mr. Holland in his underlying “grossly disproportionate”, when I support it, I would actually underline that but also “public interest”. This is not about being somehow in the interest of the offender. You need to leave some discretion in the interest of the public. So that's why I speak in favour of it.
The third reason would be that actually, for the reasons Mr. MacKenzie gave, I would use it the other way. Because there is discretion in the system in earlier places, I think, to be consistent, we need to keep that discretion. The discretion given to police officers, to the crowns, and to the whole system needs to be preserved, and we need to keep that with the judiciary as well.
Thank you.