Mr. Speaker, one needs to be careful of the factual situation. My colleague is correct about the decision by the court, that it saw this as a continuous event.
In effect, after the original theft, Mr. Chen believed he was able to recognize the thief who was in his shop again acting in a fashion that led Mr. Chen to believe he was at risk of a further theft occurring. The continuous nature of it was not just the original offence and then Mr. Chen identifying the person. It was identifying the thief and being concerned that another theft was about to occur.
When we consider that, it was quite reasonable for the court to say that it was reasonable that when Mr. Chen saw the person a very short time later on the street, this was one continuous event: the original theft, the suspected attempt at another theft and now the apprehension. That is the way the court drew those conclusions.
I need to be blunt. When we look at the rigidity of the wording in section 494 as it is, the court was being very, although I hate to say it, liberal in its interpretation.