CHAIRPERSON
When one's looking at this whole question of proportionality, what must one look at?  Must one look at the actual result of the offence or the act, or can one stop at the intention of the perpetrator before there has been an actual result?  I don't know if you understand what I'm saying.
	In other words, if one takes a look, just take the case of conspiracy to murder, you've got a conspiracy right, that's an offence, you can go to jail for that, but it's never carried out, so there's not actual result to the conspiracy other than itself being in the minds of people or maybe they might have taken certain acts, whatever, but as far as the victim is concerned there's no result, the victim is unharmed.  Can proportionality ever apply in that?  
	Can you say well look, conspiracy, the reason given, the motive to conspire to kill the person, was not justified at all.  You want to kill a person who is an ordinary civilian and there was no justification, on a political basis or any other basis, at all, to kill him.  Therefore, your arriving at that decision is unreasonable and disproportional.  If it had been carried out.  In other words, just your intention, without there being any actual physical harm.  Can proportionality apply?  That's been argued by the victims that it can apply.  I just want to hear your submission.