You made it clear that the aggravated assault is general in nature and it captures everything, and that the torture provisions suggested here are specific. Could you see a situation where somebody, instead of getting charged under aggravated assault, gets charged with the torture, and then they could get off on some of the technicalities because of the definitions, such as the repeated contact? Wouldn't that allow you as a defence counsel to say that the infliction of this pain was not repeated, and so it doesn't come within the definition of torture?
On September 29th, 2016. See this statement in context.