Originally Posted by
David Franklin
You're the expert, but:
What concerns me about section 1 is the "reasonable suspicion" bit. It seems fundamentally unacceptable that someone could commit an offense simply by possessing something in circumstances deemed to be "reasonably suspicious". We've ample evidence that when it comes to terrorism, some people's definition of "reasonable suspicion", is, um, suspect.
So it seems to me the point of section 2 is to say "it doesn't matter if the possession was thought suspicious - a valid reason for possession trumps all of that".
Bookmarks