I understand your point. There's no change whatsoever to the burden of proof, nor to the standard of proof.
Perhaps you can run us through it quickly.
If the defence argue that that act was—. So, we have to show that there's been an unlawful assault. So, if we remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, in a sense that alters some things but it doesn't alter the basic responsibility of the prosecution, which is to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the defence raise an argument and say, 'Well, look, that was a lawful act; I was only doing what I thought was reasonable in the circumstances', it's for the Crown to disprove that.
Okay. That's great.