Report comment

No mention, even by those like Bel Grant and other commenters, of the utterly irrational and self(politicians, lawyers)-serving maxim, "Ignorance of the law is no defence". It may have been ok centuries ago (in customary law) when people knew that assault, theft etc were criminal as well as immoral, but not now when statutes run to scores/hundreds of pages of dense legalese, and govt makes no effort to ensure the average citizen is aware of the general tenor, let alone the detail, of every new law that may criminalise them. Why is 'intent' only required in a minority of cases? If it is demonstrably unreasonable or not demonstrably reasonable to assume an accused knew their act was or might be criminal, then surely it is contrary to their Human Rights to punish them for it.