Well, the totality of the evidence adduced in this case includes the uncorroborated hearsay. This is the problem. It is part and parcel. You can't divorce the two. It is part and parcel of the evidence used to convict the accused. In most instances it was hearsay of what an out-of-court declarant who never came before the court said. So if it were another instance where there was all this direct evidence on record and hearsay played a tangential role in the convictions entered against the accused, that would be one case, but the exact opposite is what happened in this case. So it is difficult, your Honours, with respect, to divorce one from the other.