I have just one final comment.
I hear what you're saying, but when you have legislation that says that “the act that constitutes the offence is committed” for a certain purpose and then state in proposed paragraph 34(1)(c) that ”the act committed is reasonable”, it's pretty hard to call it an offence if in fact what you're laying out here is that someone is not guilty of an offence.
It seems to me that the confusion comes from the fact that the words “constitutes the offence” are there, not otherwise, so we maintain our position.