I'm not a legislative drafter or a jurilinguist, but having been in the drafting room on this issue, I think we can say that it does in our view sufficiently cover the grounds we wanted it to cover.
I think Mr. Garrison is correct that it is meant to apply to a number of different scenarios. If, for example, there is some kind of a threat to the offender's safety or by consequence to a staff person, that is meant to be captured within the umbrella of this term. But we were satisfied that it captured the scenarios we wanted it to capture.