Thanks very much.
I have a question on the wording chosen in proposed paragraph 34(1)(b), and it appears also in proposed paragraph 35(1)(c). It says:
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
Well, this is all about a person who is not guilty of an offence, so how could you use the words “the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of”? I'm not an expert in legislative drafting, but I wonder if some consideration should be given to changing that to “the act that would otherwise constitute the offence”, or “the act that gives rise to the charge”, or something like that, because “the act that constitutes the offence” is a bit of a tautology there. It assumes that it is an offence, and you're really talking about a defence, in which case it wouldn't be an offence.
Anyway, that's the lawyer in me. I'm sure other lawyers sitting around here might have the same question if they looked carefully at it.