The Division then considered the applicant’s criminal history, including the offenses that occurred between 1987 and 1994, and the more recent ones, namely the dangerous driving convictions from 2010 and the 2011 conviction resulting from obstructing a peace officer. The ID found that there had been “a pattern of ongoing criminal behaviour, an indication that [the applicant does] not respect the law.”
 With respect to the second part of the Division’s decision – whether the applicant would pose a danger to the public if released – the ID again considered the applicant’s extensive criminal record, focusing on the recent convictions and, in particular, the seriousness of the driving offence from 2010. The Division was particularly concerned with the lack of apparent remorse or rehabilitation on the part of the applicant, as demonstrated through his attitude at the hearing and through his 2011 conviction for obstructing a peace officer.
 In my view, the Division’s danger finding was grounded in the evidence before it and is wholly reasonable.
 The Division considered the applicant’s attitude and lack of remorse, as demonstrated at the hearing, and through his continuing criminality, and most particularly through his interactions with police in the 2011 obstruction incident, and concluded that he was not rehabilitated. Given the lack of rehabilitation, the Division reasoned that the applicant was “likely [to] engage in similar high risk behaviour if released” and thus found that he presents a danger to the public.