The fear certainly, and the previous experience they might have had as a child, for example if they were bitten and now have an elevated fear.
Those circumstances would be taken into consideration in both the attempt by the prosecution to achieve a conviction, but also I suspect by a sentencing judge. So we felt that the lawful excuse, which is available in the Criminal Code, should apply to this offence. It's not a strict liability offence and the circumstances there, the example that I give, very much go to the mens rea. What was in the mind of the accused when he interacted with this animal in a violent way? Did he use what he thought was proportionate force in attempting to protect himself? If, when the dog grabbed him on the arm he grabbed him on the throat, that might justify the individual having to use lethal force to prevent...and to save his own life, or to save the life of somebody else. So it would be very much predicated on all those circumstances at the time of the offence, which would be examined by a court of competent jurisdiction.