My questions relate to your description of the decision-making process following an investigation and the relationship between you and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think at one point you described your standard for investigation as being reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed, and of course that's the test a police officer would apply when determining whether to swear out information before a justice of the peace.
I may have misunderstood, but I thought I then heard you say that you applied a test in consideration of referring it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as to first, whether there was a reasonable likelihood of successful conviction, and second, whether it was in the public interest. I wasn't sure whether that was the test you were applying or the test you were describing that the Director of Public Prosecutions would then apply at the second stage.
Just to be clear, in your most recent comments on the public interest, which I think you set out fairly clearly and importantly, I want to ensure that I understood. In the application of that arm of the two-stage test--reasonable likelihood of conviction and in the public interest--the public interest consideration only comes forward after you've made, or the director has made, the decision that there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and it would not be appropriate to apply a public interest test to, for instance, prosecute if the decision hadn't first been made that there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction.