Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the issue of "attempt," the law focuses on looking at whether there is an action by a person which could reasonably be interpreted as indicating an intention to assault somebody else, an action which an ordinary person might reasonably construe as indicating an intention to carry through with an assault. For example, if a person were to strike at another person but miss them because they lost their footing, that would be an attempted assault because it is reasonable to assume that, but for the fact that they lost their footing, they would have carried out the assault.

Whereas if a person were behind bars, for example, and made a threatening gesture to another person, because they are behind bars, it is not reasonable to assume that they would have the means to carry out their assault so that would not be an assault. There has to be an element of reasonableness. The ordinary person has to reasonably construe that there is an intention to assault and the ability to carry through with that assault, for there to be an attempted assault.

In terms of threats, threats usually involve a situation where there isn't a physical action, but just the use of words threatening violence. Again, the issue is would the reasonable person have construed the words as being threatened. Whether a statement constitutes a threat would depend on what the words were, the context in which the statements were made, and the likely impact of the words on the recipient. Certain words might be more accepted in one context than in another context. So in terms of determining whether a statement is a threatening statement, the court will examine all of those different factors. I hope that assists the committee, Mr. Chairman.