Yeah , so , the final d decision is the combination of these three. So again , it 's  it 's some kind of , uh

OK so , then , the question i So then my question is t to you then , would be  So is the only r reason we can make all these smaller Bayes - nets , because we know we can only deal with a finite set of constructions ? Cuz oth If we 're just taking arbitrary language in , we couldn't have a node for every possible question , you know ?


OK so , then , the question i So then my question is t to you then , would be  So is the only r reason we can make all these smaller Bayes - nets , because we know we can only deal with a finite set of constructions ? Cuz oth If we 're just taking arbitrary language in , we couldn't have a node for every possible question , you know ?

A decision node for every possible question , you mean ?


OK so , then , the question i So then my question is t to you then , would be  So is the only r reason we can make all these smaller Bayes - nets , because we know we can only deal with a finite set of constructions ? Cuz oth If we 're just taking arbitrary language in , we couldn't have a node for every possible question , you know ?

A decision node for every possible question , you mean ?

Well , I  like , in the case of  Yeah. In the ca Any piece of language , we wouldn't be able to answer it with this system , b if we just h Cuz we wouldn't have the correct node. Basically , w what you 're s proposing is a n Where - Is node , right ?


A decision node for every possible question , you mean ?

Well , I  like , in the case of  Yeah. In the ca Any piece of language , we wouldn't be able to answer it with this system , b if we just h Cuz we wouldn't have the correct node. Basically , w what you 're s proposing is a n Where - Is node , right ?

And  and if we  And if someone  says , you know , uh , something in Mandarin to the system , we 'd - wouldn't know which node to look at to answer that question ,


Well , I  like , in the case of  Yeah. In the ca Any piece of language , we wouldn't be able to answer it with this system , b if we just h Cuz we wouldn't have the correct node. Basically , w what you 're s proposing is a n Where - Is node , right ?

And  and if we  And if someone  says , you know , uh , something in Mandarin to the system , we 'd - wouldn't know which node to look at to answer that question ,


And  and if we  And if someone  says , you know , uh , something in Mandarin to the system , we 'd - wouldn't know which node to look at to answer that question ,


So , but  but if we have a finite  What ?


So , but  but if we have a finite  What ?

I don't see your point. What  what  what I am thinking , or what we 're about to propose here is we 're always gonna get the whole list of values and their posterior probabilities. And now we need an expert system or belief - net or something that interprets that , that looks at all the values and says , " The winner is Timing. Now , go there. " " Uh , go there , Timing , now. " Or , " The winner is Info - on , Function - Off. " So , he wants to know  something about it , and what it does. Nuh ? Uh , regardless of  of  of the input. Wh - Regardle


So , but  but if we have a finite  What ?

I don't see your point. What  what  what I am thinking , or what we 're about to propose here is we 're always gonna get the whole list of values and their posterior probabilities. And now we need an expert system or belief - net or something that interprets that , that looks at all the values and says , " The winner is Timing. Now , go there. " " Uh , go there , Timing , now. " Or , " The winner is Info - on , Function - Off. " So , he wants to know  something about it , and what it does. Nuh ? Uh , regardless of  of  of the input. Wh - Regardle

Yeah , but But how does the expert  but how does the expert system know  how who which one to declare the winner , if it doesn't know the question it is , and how that question should be answered ?


So , but  but if we have a finite  What ?

I don't see your point. What  what  what I am thinking , or what we 're about to propose here is we 're always gonna get the whole list of values and their posterior probabilities. And now we need an expert system or belief - net or something that interprets that , that looks at all the values and says , " The winner is Timing. Now , go there. " " Uh , go there , Timing , now. " Or , " The winner is Info - on , Function - Off. " So , he wants to know  something about it , and what it does. Nuh ? Uh , regardless of  of  of the input. Wh - Regardle

Yeah , but But how does the expert  but how does the expert system know  how who which one to declare the winner , if it doesn't know the question it is , and how that question should be answered ?

Based on the k what the question was , so what the discourse , the ontology , the situation and the user model gave us , we came up with these values for these decisions.


I don't see your point. What  what  what I am thinking , or what we 're about to propose here is we 're always gonna get the whole list of values and their posterior probabilities. And now we need an expert system or belief - net or something that interprets that , that looks at all the values and says , " The winner is Timing. Now , go there. " " Uh , go there , Timing , now. " Or , " The winner is Info - on , Function - Off. " So , he wants to know  something about it , and what it does. Nuh ? Uh , regardless of  of  of the input. Wh - Regardle

Yeah , but But how does the expert  but how does the expert system know  how who which one to declare the winner , if it doesn't know the question it is , and how that question should be answered ?

Based on the k what the question was , so what the discourse , the ontology , the situation and the user model gave us , we came up with these values for these decisions.

Yeah I know. But how do we weight what we get out ? As , which one i Which ones are important ? So my i So , if we were to it with a Bayes - net , we 'd have to have a node  for every question that we knew how to deal with , that would take all of the inputs and weight them appropriately for that question.


Yeah , but But how does the expert  but how does the expert system know  how who which one to declare the winner , if it doesn't know the question it is , and how that question should be answered ?

Based on the k what the question was , so what the discourse , the ontology , the situation and the user model gave us , we came up with these values for these decisions.

Yeah I know. But how do we weight what we get out ? As , which one i Which ones are important ? So my i So , if we were to it with a Bayes - net , we 'd have to have a node  for every question that we knew how to deal with , that would take all of the inputs and weight them appropriately for that question.


Based on the k what the question was , so what the discourse , the ontology , the situation and the user model gave us , we came up with these values for these decisions.

Yeah I know. But how do we weight what we get out ? As , which one i Which ones are important ? So my i So , if we were to it with a Bayes - net , we 'd have to have a node  for every question that we knew how to deal with , that would take all of the inputs and weight them appropriately for that question.


Yeah I know. But how do we weight what we get out ? As , which one i Which ones are important ? So my i So , if we were to it with a Bayes - net , we 'd have to have a node  for every question that we knew how to deal with , that would take all of the inputs and weight them appropriately for that question.

Um , I mean , are you saying that , what happens if you try to scale this up to the situation , or are we just dealing with arbitrary language ?


Um , I mean , are you saying that , what happens if you try to scale this up to the situation , or are we just dealing with arbitrary language ?


Um , I mean , are you saying that , what happens if you try to scale this up to the situation , or are we just dealing with arbitrary language ?

Well , no. I  I guess my question is , Is the reason that we can make a node f or  OK. So , lemme see if I 'm confused. Are we going to make a node for every question ? Does that make sense ?


Well , no. I  I guess my question is , Is the reason that we can make a node f or  OK. So , lemme see if I 'm confused. Are we going to make a node for every question ? Does that make sense ?


Hmm. I don't  Not necessarily , I would think. I mean , it 's not based on constructions , it 's based on things like , uh , there 's gonna be a node for Go - there or not , and there 's gonna be a node for Enter , View , Approach.


Hmm. I don't  Not necessarily , I would think. I mean , it 's not based on constructions , it 's based on things like , uh , there 's gonna be a node for Go - there or not , and there 's gonna be a node for Enter , View , Approach.

Wel W OK. So , someone asked a question.


Wel W OK. So , someone asked a question.

Well , look at  look  Face yourself with this pr question. You get this  You 'll have  y This is what you get. And now you have to make a decision. What do we think ? What does this tell us ? And not knowing what was asked , and what happened , and whether the person was a tourist or a local , because all of these factors have presumably already gone into making these posterior probabilities. What  what we need is a  just a mechanism that says , " Aha ! There is  "


Well , look at  look  Face yourself with this pr question. You get this  You 'll have  y This is what you get. And now you have to make a decision. What do we think ? What does this tell us ? And not knowing what was asked , and what happened , and whether the person was a tourist or a local , because all of these factors have presumably already gone into making these posterior probabilities. What  what we need is a  just a mechanism that says , " Aha ! There is  "

Yeah. I just don't think a " winner - take - all " type of thing is the


Well , look at  look  Face yourself with this pr question. You get this  You 'll have  y This is what you get. And now you have to make a decision. What do we think ? What does this tell us ? And not knowing what was asked , and what happened , and whether the person was a tourist or a local , because all of these factors have presumably already gone into making these posterior probabilities. What  what we need is a  just a mechanism that says , " Aha ! There is  "

Yeah. I just don't think a " winner - take - all " type of thing is the

I mean , in general , like , we won't just have those three , right ? We 'll have , uh , like , many , many nodes. So we have to , like  So that it 's no longer possible to just look at the nodes themselves and figure out what the person is trying to say.


Well , look at  look  Face yourself with this pr question. You get this  You 'll have  y This is what you get. And now you have to make a decision. What do we think ? What does this tell us ? And not knowing what was asked , and what happened , and whether the person was a tourist or a local , because all of these factors have presumably already gone into making these posterior probabilities. What  what we need is a  just a mechanism that says , " Aha ! There is  "

Yeah. I just don't think a " winner - take - all " type of thing is the

I mean , in general , like , we won't just have those three , right ? We 'll have , uh , like , many , many nodes. So we have to , like  So that it 's no longer possible to just look at the nodes themselves and figure out what the person is trying to say.

Yep. Because there are interdependencies , right ? The uh  Uh , no. So if  if for example , the Go - there posterior possibility is so high , um , uh , w if it 's  if it has reached  reached a certain height , then all of this becomes irrelevant. So. If  even if  if the function or the history or something is scoring pretty good on the true node , true value


Yeah. I just don't think a " winner - take - all " type of thing is the

I mean , in general , like , we won't just have those three , right ? We 'll have , uh , like , many , many nodes. So we have to , like  So that it 's no longer possible to just look at the nodes themselves and figure out what the person is trying to say.

Yep. Because there are interdependencies , right ? The uh  Uh , no. So if  if for example , the Go - there posterior possibility is so high , um , uh , w if it 's  if it has reached  reached a certain height , then all of this becomes irrelevant. So. If  even if  if the function or the history or something is scoring pretty good on the true node , true value

Wel I don't know about that , cuz that would suggest that  I mean


I mean , in general , like , we won't just have those three , right ? We 'll have , uh , like , many , many nodes. So we have to , like  So that it 's no longer possible to just look at the nodes themselves and figure out what the person is trying to say.

Yep. Because there are interdependencies , right ? The uh  Uh , no. So if  if for example , the Go - there posterior possibility is so high , um , uh , w if it 's  if it has reached  reached a certain height , then all of this becomes irrelevant. So. If  even if  if the function or the history or something is scoring pretty good on the true node , true value

Wel I don't know about that , cuz that would suggest that  I mean

He wants to go there and know something about it ?


Yep. Because there are interdependencies , right ? The uh  Uh , no. So if  if for example , the Go - there posterior possibility is so high , um , uh , w if it 's  if it has reached  reached a certain height , then all of this becomes irrelevant. So. If  even if  if the function or the history or something is scoring pretty good on the true node , true value

Wel I don't know about that , cuz that would suggest that  I mean

He wants to go there and know something about it ?

Do they have to be mutual Yeah. Do they have to be mutually exclusive ?


Wel I don't know about that , cuz that would suggest that  I mean

He wants to go there and know something about it ?

Do they have to be mutual Yeah. Do they have to be mutually exclusive ?

I think to some extent they are. Or maybe they 're not.


He wants to go there and know something about it ?

Do they have to be mutual Yeah. Do they have to be mutually exclusive ?

I think to some extent they are. Or maybe they 're not.

Cuz I , uh  The way you describe what they meant , they weren't mutu uh , they didn't seem mutually exclusive to me.


Do they have to be mutual Yeah. Do they have to be mutually exclusive ?

I think to some extent they are. Or maybe they 're not.

Cuz I , uh  The way you describe what they meant , they weren't mutu uh , they didn't seem mutually exclusive to me.

Well , if he doesn't want to go there , even if the Enter posterior proba So.


I think to some extent they are. Or maybe they 're not.

Cuz I , uh  The way you describe what they meant , they weren't mutu uh , they didn't seem mutually exclusive to me.

Well , if he doesn't want to go there , even if the Enter posterior proba So.


Cuz I , uh  The way you describe what they meant , they weren't mutu uh , they didn't seem mutually exclusive to me.

Well , if he doesn't want to go there , even if the Enter posterior proba So.

Go - there is No. Enter is High , and Info - on is High.


Well , if he doesn't want to go there , even if the Enter posterior proba So.

Go - there is No. Enter is High , and Info - on is High.

Well , yeah , just out of the other three , though , that you had in the


Go - there is No. Enter is High , and Info - on is High.

Well , yeah , just out of the other three , though , that you had in the


Go - there is No. Enter is High , and Info - on is High.

Well , yeah , just out of the other three , though , that you had in the

those three nodes. The - d They didn't seem like they were mutually exclusive.


Well , yeah , just out of the other three , though , that you had in the

those three nodes. The - d They didn't seem like they were mutually exclusive.

No , there 's  No. But  It 's through the


those three nodes. The - d They didn't seem like they were mutually exclusive.

No , there 's  No. But  It 's through the

So th s so , yeah , but some  So , some things would drop out , and some things would still be important.


No , there 's  No. But  It 's through the

So th s so , yeah , but some  So , some things would drop out , and some things would still be important.

But I guess what 's confusing me is , if we have a Bayes - net to deal w another Bayes - net to deal with this stuff ,


So th s so , yeah , but some  So , some things would drop out , and some things would still be important.

But I guess what 's confusing me is , if we have a Bayes - net to deal w another Bayes - net to deal with this stuff ,


But I guess what 's confusing me is , if we have a Bayes - net to deal w another Bayes - net to deal with this stuff ,

you know , uh , is the only reason  OK , so , I guess , if we have a Ba - another Bayes - net to deal with this stuff , the only r reason  we can design it is cuz we know what each question is asking ?


you know , uh , is the only reason  OK , so , I guess , if we have a Ba - another Bayes - net to deal with this stuff , the only r reason  we can design it is cuz we know what each question is asking ?

And then , so , the only reason  way we would know what question he 's asking is based upon  Oh , so if  Let 's say I had a construction parser , and I plug this in , I would know what each construction  the communicative intent of the construction was


And then , so , the only reason  way we would know what question he 's asking is based upon  Oh , so if  Let 's say I had a construction parser , and I plug this in , I would know what each construction  the communicative intent of the construction was

and so then I would know how to weight the nodes appropriately , in response. So no matter what they said , if I could map it onto a Where - Is construction , I could say , " ah !


and so then I would know how to weight the nodes appropriately , in response. So no matter what they said , if I could map it onto a Where - Is construction , I could say , " ah !

well the the intent , here , was Where - Is " ,


well the the intent , here , was Where - Is " ,


well the the intent , here , was Where - Is " ,

Yeah. Yes , I mean. Sure. You do need to know  I mean , to have that kind of information.


Yeah. Yes , I mean. Sure. You do need to know  I mean , to have that kind of information.

Hmm. Yeah , I 'm also agreeing that  a simple pru  Take the ones where we have a clear winner. Forget about the ones where it 's all sort of middle ground. Prune those out and just hand over the ones where we have a winner. Yeah , because that would be the easiest way. We just compose as an output an XML mes  message that says. " Go there  now. " " Enter historical information. " And not care whether that 's consistent with anything. Right ? But in this case if we say , " definitely he doesn't want to go there. He just wants to know where it is. " or let 's call this  this " Look - At - H " He wants to know something about the history of. So he said , " Tell me something about the history of that. " Now , the e But for some reason the Endpoint - Approach gets a really high score ,  too. We can't expect this to be sort of at O point  three , three , three , O point , three , three , three , O point , three , three , three. Right ? Somebody needs to zap that. You know ? Or know  There needs to be some knowledge that


Yeah. Yes , I mean. Sure. You do need to know  I mean , to have that kind of information.

Hmm. Yeah , I 'm also agreeing that  a simple pru  Take the ones where we have a clear winner. Forget about the ones where it 's all sort of middle ground. Prune those out and just hand over the ones where we have a winner. Yeah , because that would be the easiest way. We just compose as an output an XML mes  message that says. " Go there  now. " " Enter historical information. " And not care whether that 's consistent with anything. Right ? But in this case if we say , " definitely he doesn't want to go there. He just wants to know where it is. " or let 's call this  this " Look - At - H " He wants to know something about the history of. So he said , " Tell me something about the history of that. " Now , the e But for some reason the Endpoint - Approach gets a really high score ,  too. We can't expect this to be sort of at O point  three , three , three , O point , three , three , three , O point , three , three , three. Right ? Somebody needs to zap that. You know ? Or know  There needs to be some knowledge that

We  Yeah , but , the Bayes - net that would merge  I just realized that I had my hand in between my mouth and my micr er , my and my microphone. So then , the Bayes - net that would merge there , that would make the decision between Go - there , Info - on , and Location , would have a node to tell you which one of those three you wanted , and based upon that node , then you would look at the other stuff.


Hmm. Yeah , I 'm also agreeing that  a simple pru  Take the ones where we have a clear winner. Forget about the ones where it 's all sort of middle ground. Prune those out and just hand over the ones where we have a winner. Yeah , because that would be the easiest way. We just compose as an output an XML mes  message that says. " Go there  now. " " Enter historical information. " And not care whether that 's consistent with anything. Right ? But in this case if we say , " definitely he doesn't want to go there. He just wants to know where it is. " or let 's call this  this " Look - At - H " He wants to know something about the history of. So he said , " Tell me something about the history of that. " Now , the e But for some reason the Endpoint - Approach gets a really high score ,  too. We can't expect this to be sort of at O point  three , three , three , O point , three , three , three , O point , three , three , three. Right ? Somebody needs to zap that. You know ? Or know  There needs to be some knowledge that

We  Yeah , but , the Bayes - net that would merge  I just realized that I had my hand in between my mouth and my micr er , my and my microphone. So then , the Bayes - net that would merge there , that would make the decision between Go - there , Info - on , and Location , would have a node to tell you which one of those three you wanted , and based upon that node , then you would look at the other stuff.


We  Yeah , but , the Bayes - net that would merge  I just realized that I had my hand in between my mouth and my micr er , my and my microphone. So then , the Bayes - net that would merge there , that would make the decision between Go - there , Info - on , and Location , would have a node to tell you which one of those three you wanted , and based upon that node , then you would look at the other stuff.

Yep. It 's sort of one of those , that 's  It 's more like a decision tree , if  if you want. You first look o at the lowball ones ,


Yep. It 's sort of one of those , that 's  It 's more like a decision tree , if  if you want. You first look o at the lowball ones ,


Yep. It 's sort of one of those , that 's  It 's more like a decision tree , if  if you want. You first look o at the lowball ones ,

Yeah , I didn't intend to say that every possible  OK. There was a confusion there , k I didn't intend to say every possible thing should go into the Bayes - net , because some of the things aren't relevant in the Bayes - net for a specific question. Like the Endpoint is not necessarily relevant in the Bayes - net for Where - Is until after you 've decided whether you wanna go there or not.


Yeah , I didn't intend to say that every possible  OK. There was a confusion there , k I didn't intend to say every possible thing should go into the Bayes - net , because some of the things aren't relevant in the Bayes - net for a specific question. Like the Endpoint is not necessarily relevant in the Bayes - net for Where - Is until after you 've decided whether you wanna go there or not.


I guess the other thing is that um , yeah. I mean , when you 're asked a specific question and you don't even  Like , if you 're asked a Where - Is question , you may not even look  like , ask for the posterior probability of the , uh , EVA node , right ? Cuz , that 's what  I mean , in the Bayes - net you always ask for the posterior probability of a specific node. So , I mean , you may not even bother to compute things you don't need.


I guess the other thing is that um , yeah. I mean , when you 're asked a specific question and you don't even  Like , if you 're asked a Where - Is question , you may not even look  like , ask for the posterior probability of the , uh , EVA node , right ? Cuz , that 's what  I mean , in the Bayes - net you always ask for the posterior probability of a specific node. So , I mean , you may not even bother to compute things you don't need.

No. You can compute , uh , the posterior probability of one subset of the nodes , given some other nodes , but totally ignore some other nodes , also. Basically , things you ignore get marginalized over.


I guess the other thing is that um , yeah. I mean , when you 're asked a specific question and you don't even  Like , if you 're asked a Where - Is question , you may not even look  like , ask for the posterior probability of the , uh , EVA node , right ? Cuz , that 's what  I mean , in the Bayes - net you always ask for the posterior probability of a specific node. So , I mean , you may not even bother to compute things you don't need.

No. You can compute , uh , the posterior probability of one subset of the nodes , given some other nodes , but totally ignore some other nodes , also. Basically , things you ignore get marginalized over.

Yeah , but that 's  that 's just shifting the problem. Then you would have to make a decision ,


No. You can compute , uh , the posterior probability of one subset of the nodes , given some other nodes , but totally ignore some other nodes , also. Basically , things you ignore get marginalized over.

Yeah , but that 's  that 's just shifting the problem. Then you would have to make a decision ,


No. You can compute , uh , the posterior probability of one subset of the nodes , given some other nodes , but totally ignore some other nodes , also. Basically , things you ignore get marginalized over.

Yeah , but that 's  that 's just shifting the problem. Then you would have to make a decision ,

" OK , if it 's a Where - Is question , which decision nodes do I query ? "


Yeah , but that 's  that 's just shifting the problem. Then you would have to make a decision ,

" OK , if it 's a Where - Is question , which decision nodes do I query ? "

Yeah. Yes. But I would think that 's what you want to do.


" OK , if it 's a Where - Is question , which decision nodes do I query ? "

Yeah. Yes. But I would think that 's what you want to do.


Yeah. Yes. But I would think that 's what you want to do.


Well , eventually , you still have to pick out which ones you look at.


Well , eventually , you still have to pick out which ones you look at.

Yeah  it 's  it 's  it 's apples and oranges.


Yeah  it 's  it 's  it 's apples and oranges.


Yeah  it 's  it 's  it 's apples and oranges.

Nuh ? I mean , maybe it does make a difference in terms of performance , computational time.


Nuh ? I mean , maybe it does make a difference in terms of performance , computational time.

So either you always have it compute all the posterior possibilities for all the values for all nodes , and then prune the ones you think that are irrelevant ,


So either you always have it compute all the posterior possibilities for all the values for all nodes , and then prune the ones you think that are irrelevant ,

or you just make a p @ @  a priori estimate of what you think might be relevant and query those.


or you just make a p @ @  a priori estimate of what you think might be relevant and query those.

So basically , you 'd have a decision tree  query ,  Go - there. If k if that 's false , query this one. If that 's true , query that one. And just basically do a binary search through the  ?


or you just make a p @ @  a priori estimate of what you think might be relevant and query those.

So basically , you 'd have a decision tree  query ,  Go - there. If k if that 's false , query this one. If that 's true , query that one. And just basically do a binary search through the  ?

I don't know if it would necessarily be that , uh , complicated. But , uh  I mean , it w


So basically , you 'd have a decision tree  query ,  Go - there. If k if that 's false , query this one. If that 's true , query that one. And just basically do a binary search through the  ?

I don't know if it would necessarily be that , uh , complicated. But , uh  I mean , it w

Well , in the case of Go - there , it would be. In the case  Cuz if you needed an If y If Go - there was true , you 'd wanna know what endpoint was. And if it was false , you 'd wanna d look at either Lo - Income Info - on or History.


So basically , you 'd have a decision tree  query ,  Go - there. If k if that 's false , query this one. If that 's true , query that one. And just basically do a binary search through the  ?

I don't know if it would necessarily be that , uh , complicated. But , uh  I mean , it w

Well , in the case of Go - there , it would be. In the case  Cuz if you needed an If y If Go - there was true , you 'd wanna know what endpoint was. And if it was false , you 'd wanna d look at either Lo - Income Info - on or History.

Yeah. That 's true , I guess. Yeah ,  so , in a way you would have that.


I don't know if it would necessarily be that , uh , complicated. But , uh  I mean , it w

Well , in the case of Go - there , it would be. In the case  Cuz if you needed an If y If Go - there was true , you 'd wanna know what endpoint was. And if it was false , you 'd wanna d look at either Lo - Income Info - on or History.

Yeah. That 's true , I guess. Yeah ,  so , in a way you would have that.

Also , I 'm somewhat boggled by that Hugin software.


Well , in the case of Go - there , it would be. In the case  Cuz if you needed an If y If Go - there was true , you 'd wanna know what endpoint was. And if it was false , you 'd wanna d look at either Lo - Income Info - on or History.

Yeah. That 's true , I guess. Yeah ,  so , in a way you would have that.

Also , I 'm somewhat boggled by that Hugin software.


Yeah. That 's true , I guess. Yeah ,  so , in a way you would have that.

Also , I 'm somewhat boggled by that Hugin software.

I can't figure out how to get the probabilities into it. Like , I 'd look at


Also , I 'm somewhat boggled by that Hugin software.

I can't figure out how to get the probabilities into it. Like , I 'd look at


I can't figure out how to get the probabilities into it. Like , I 'd look at


I can't figure out how to get the probabilities into it. Like , I 'd look at

OK. Alright. Well , hopefully it 's  fixable.


OK. Alright. Well , hopefully it 's  fixable.


OK. Alright. Well , hopefully it 's  fixable.

Oh yeah , yeah. I d I just think I haven't figured out what  the terms in Hugin mean , versus what Java Bayes terms are.


Oh yeah , yeah. I d I just think I haven't figured out what  the terms in Hugin mean , versus what Java Bayes terms are.


Oh yeah , yeah. I d I just think I haven't figured out what  the terms in Hugin mean , versus what Java Bayes terms are.

Um , by the way , are  Do we know whether Jerry and Nancy are coming ?


Um , by the way , are  Do we know whether Jerry and Nancy are coming ?


Um , by the way , are  Do we know whether Jerry and Nancy are coming ?

They should come when they 're done their stuff , basically , whenever that is. So.


They should come when they 're done their stuff , basically , whenever that is. So.


They should come when they 're done their stuff , basically , whenever that is. So.

Um , I guess , Jerry needs to enter marks , but I don't know if he 's gonna do that now or later. But , uh , if he 's gonna enter marks , it 's gonna take him awhile , I guess , and he won't be here.


Um , I guess , Jerry needs to enter marks , but I don't know if he 's gonna do that now or later. But , uh , if he 's gonna enter marks , it 's gonna take him awhile , I guess , and he won't be here.

Nancy ? Um , she was sorta finishing up the , uh , calculation of marks and assigning of grades , but I don't know if she should be here. Well  or , she should be free after that , so  assuming she 's coming to this meeting. I don't know if she knows about it.


Nancy ? Um , she was sorta finishing up the , uh , calculation of marks and assigning of grades , but I don't know if she should be here. Well  or , she should be free after that , so  assuming she 's coming to this meeting. I don't know if she knows about it.


Nancy ? Um , she was sorta finishing up the , uh , calculation of marks and assigning of grades , but I don't know if she should be here. Well  or , she should be free after that , so  assuming she 's coming to this meeting. I don't know if she knows about it.

Mm - hmm. OK. Because basically , what  where we also have decided , prior to this meeting is that we would have a rerun of the three of us sitting together


Mm - hmm. OK. Because basically , what  where we also have decided , prior to this meeting is that we would have a rerun of the three of us sitting together


and finish up the , uh , values of this. So we have , uh  Believe it or not , we have all the bottom ones here.


and finish up the , uh , values of this. So we have , uh  Believe it or not , we have all the bottom ones here.

Yep. We  we  we have  Actually what we have is this line.


Yep. We  we  we have  Actually what we have is this line.


So the  the  the  For instance , this Location node 's got two inputs ,


Those are  The bottom things are inputs , also.


Those are  The bottom things are inputs , also.

OK , that was OK. That makes a lot more sense to me now.


OK , that was OK. That makes a lot more sense to me now.


OK , that was OK. That makes a lot more sense to me now.

Cuz I thought it was like , that one in Stuart 's book about , you know , the


Cuz I thought it was like , that one in Stuart 's book about , you know , the


Yeah , there 's a dog one , too , but that 's in Java Bayes ,


But there 's something about bowel problems or something with the dog.


But there 's something about bowel problems or something with the dog.

And we have all the top ones , all the ones to which no arrows are pointing. What we 're missing are the  these , where arrows are pointing , where we 're combining top ones. So , we have to come up with values for this , and this , this , this , and so forth. And maybe just fiddle around with it a little bit more. And , um. And then it 's just , uh , edges , many of edges. And , um , we won't  meet next Monday. So.


And we have all the top ones , all the ones to which no arrows are pointing. What we 're missing are the  these , where arrows are pointing , where we 're combining top ones. So , we have to come up with values for this , and this , this , this , and so forth. And maybe just fiddle around with it a little bit more. And , um. And then it 's just , uh , edges , many of edges. And , um , we won't  meet next Monday. So.


Italy , huh ? What 's , uh  what 's there ?


Italy , huh ? What 's , uh  what 's there ?

Well , it 's a country. Buildings. People.


Well , it 's a country. Buildings. People.


It 's a pretty nice place , in my brief , uh , encounter with it.


It 's a pretty nice place , in my brief , uh , encounter with it.

Do you guys  Oh , yeah. So. Part of what we actually want to do is sort of schedule out what we want to surprise him with when  when he comes back. Um , so


It 's a pretty nice place , in my brief , uh , encounter with it.

Do you guys  Oh , yeah. So. Part of what we actually want to do is sort of schedule out what we want to surprise him with when  when he comes back. Um , so

Yeah ? You  or have a finished construction parser and a working belief - net , and uh


Do you guys  Oh , yeah. So. Part of what we actually want to do is sort of schedule out what we want to surprise him with when  when he comes back. Um , so

Yeah ? You  or have a finished construction parser and a working belief - net , and uh

That wouldn't be disappointing. I think w we should do absolutely no work for the two weeks that he 's gone.


Yeah ? You  or have a finished construction parser and a working belief - net , and uh

That wouldn't be disappointing. I think w we should do absolutely no work for the two weeks that he 's gone.

Well , that 's actually what I had planned , personally. I had  I  I had sort of scheduled out in my mind that you guys do a lot of work , and I do nothing. And then , I sort of


That wouldn't be disappointing. I think w we should do absolutely no work for the two weeks that he 's gone.

Well , that 's actually what I had planned , personally. I had  I  I had sort of scheduled out in my mind that you guys do a lot of work , and I do nothing. And then , I sort of

sort of bask in  in your glory. But , uh , i do you guys have any vacation plans , because I myself am going to be , um , gone , but this is actually not really important. Just this weekend we 're going camping.


Well , that 's actually what I had planned , personally. I had  I  I had sort of scheduled out in my mind that you guys do a lot of work , and I do nothing. And then , I sort of

sort of bask in  in your glory. But , uh , i do you guys have any vacation plans , because I myself am going to be , um , gone , but this is actually not really important. Just this weekend we 're going camping.

Yeah , I 'm wanna be this  gone this weekend , too.


sort of bask in  in your glory. But , uh , i do you guys have any vacation plans , because I myself am going to be , um , gone , but this is actually not really important. Just this weekend we 're going camping.

Yeah , I 'm wanna be this  gone this weekend , too.

Ah. But we 're all going to be here on Tuesday again ? Looks like it ?


Yeah , I 'm wanna be this  gone this weekend , too.

Ah. But we 're all going to be here on Tuesday again ? Looks like it ?

OK , then. Let 's meet  meet again next Tuesday. And , um , finish up this Bayes - net. And once we have finished it , I guess we can , um  and that 's going to be more just you and me , because Bhaskara is doing probabilistic , recursive , structured , object - oriented , uh ,


Ah. But we 're all going to be here on Tuesday again ? Looks like it ?

OK , then. Let 's meet  meet again next Tuesday. And , um , finish up this Bayes - net. And once we have finished it , I guess we can , um  and that 's going to be more just you and me , because Bhaskara is doing probabilistic , recursive , structured , object - oriented , uh ,


OK , then. Let 's meet  meet again next Tuesday. And , um , finish up this Bayes - net. And once we have finished it , I guess we can , um  and that 's going to be more just you and me , because Bhaskara is doing probabilistic , recursive , structured , object - oriented , uh ,


Killing , reasoning. What 's the difference ?


Killing , reasoning. What 's the difference ?

Wait. So you 're saying , next Tuesday , is it the whole group meeting , or just us three working on it , or  or  ?


Killing , reasoning. What 's the difference ?

Wait. So you 're saying , next Tuesday , is it the whole group meeting , or just us three working on it , or  or  ?

Uh. The whole group. And we present our results , our final ,


Wait. So you 're saying , next Tuesday , is it the whole group meeting , or just us three working on it , or  or  ?

Uh. The whole group. And we present our results , our final ,


Uh. The whole group. And we present our results , our final ,

So , when you were saying we  need to do a re - run of , like


So , when you were saying we  need to do a re - run of , like


So , when you were saying we  need to do a re - run of , like

What  Like , just working out the rest of the


So , when you were saying we  need to do a re - run of , like

What  Like , just working out the rest of the

Yeah. We should do this th the upcoming days.


What  Like , just working out the rest of the

Yeah. We should do this th the upcoming days.


Yeah. We should do this th the upcoming days.

When you say , " the whole group " , you mean  the four of us , and Keith ?


When you say , " the whole group " , you mean  the four of us , and Keith ?


When you say , " the whole group " , you mean  the four of us , and Keith ?

Ami might be here , and it 's possible that Nancy 'll be here ?


Ami might be here , and it 's possible that Nancy 'll be here ?


Ami might be here , and it 's possible that Nancy 'll be here ?

Because , th you know , once we have the belief - net done


Because , th you know , once we have the belief - net done

You 're just gonna have to explain it to me , then , on Tuesday , how it 's all gonna work out. You know.


Because , th you know , once we have the belief - net done

You 're just gonna have to explain it to me , then , on Tuesday , how it 's all gonna work out. You know.

We will. OK. Because then , once we have it sort of up and running , then we can start you know , defining the interfaces and then feed stuff into it and get stuff out of it , and then hook it up to some fake construction parser and


Because , th you know , once we have the belief - net done

You 're just gonna have to explain it to me , then , on Tuesday , how it 's all gonna work out. You know.

We will. OK. Because then , once we have it sort of up and running , then we can start you know , defining the interfaces and then feed stuff into it and get stuff out of it , and then hook it up to some fake construction parser and

That you will have in about nine months or so.


You 're just gonna have to explain it to me , then , on Tuesday , how it 's all gonna work out. You know.

We will. OK. Because then , once we have it sort of up and running , then we can start you know , defining the interfaces and then feed stuff into it and get stuff out of it , and then hook it up to some fake construction parser and

That you will have in about nine months or so.


We will. OK. Because then , once we have it sort of up and running , then we can start you know , defining the interfaces and then feed stuff into it and get stuff out of it , and then hook it up to some fake construction parser and

That you will have in about nine months or so.


That you will have in about nine months or so.


The first bad version 'll be done in nine months.


The first bad version 'll be done in nine months.

Yeah , I can worry about the ontology interface and you can  Keith can worry about the discourse. I mean , this is pretty  Um , I mean , I  I  I hope everybody uh knows that these are just going to be uh dummy values , right ?


Yeah , I can worry about the ontology interface and you can  Keith can worry about the discourse. I mean , this is pretty  Um , I mean , I  I  I hope everybody uh knows that these are just going to be uh dummy values , right ?


S so  so if the endpoint  if the Go - there is Yes and No , then Go - there - discourse will just be fifty - fifty. Right ?


S so  so if the endpoint  if the Go - there is Yes and No , then Go - there - discourse will just be fifty - fifty. Right ?

Um , what do you mean ? If the Go - there says No , then the Go - there is


Um , what do you mean ? If the Go - there says No , then the Go - there is


Like , the Go - there depends on all those four things.


Like , the Go - there depends on all those four things.

But , what are the values of the Go - there - discourse ?


But , what are the values of the Go - there - discourse ?

Well , it depends on the situation. If the discourse is strongly indicating that


But , what are the values of the Go - there - discourse ?

Well , it depends on the situation. If the discourse is strongly indicating that

Yeah , but , uh , we have no discourse input.


But , what are the values of the Go - there - discourse ?

Well , it depends on the situation. If the discourse is strongly indicating that

Yeah , but , uh , we have no discourse input.

Oh , I see. The d See , uh , specifically in our situation , D and O are gonna be , uh  Yeah. Sure. So , whatever.


Well , it depends on the situation. If the discourse is strongly indicating that

Yeah , but , uh , we have no discourse input.

Oh , I see. The d See , uh , specifically in our situation , D and O are gonna be , uh  Yeah. Sure. So , whatever.

So , so far we have  Is that what the Keith node is ?


Yeah , but , uh , we have no discourse input.

Oh , I see. The d See , uh , specifically in our situation , D and O are gonna be , uh  Yeah. Sure. So , whatever.

So , so far we have  Is that what the Keith node is ?


Oh , I see. The d See , uh , specifically in our situation , D and O are gonna be , uh  Yeah. Sure. So , whatever.

So , so far we have  Is that what the Keith node is ?

OK. And you 're taking it out ?  for now ?


So , so far we have  Is that what the Keith node is ?

OK. And you 're taking it out ?  for now ?


OK. And you 're taking it out ?  for now ?


OK. And you 're taking it out ?  for now ?

OK , this , I can  I can get it in here.


OK , this , I can  I can get it in here.


OK , this , I can  I can get it in here.

I can get it in here , so th We have the , uh , um , sk let 's  let 's call it " Keith - Johno


I can get it in here , so th We have the , uh , um , sk let 's  let 's call it " Keith - Johno

node ". There is an H  somewhere printed.


node ". There is an H  somewhere printed.

Yeah. People have the same problem with my name.


Yeah. People have the same problem with my name.


Does th th does the H go b before the A or after the A ?


Does th th does the H go b before the A or after the A ?

Yeah. OK , good. Cuz you kn When you said people have the same problem , I thought  Cuz my H goes after the uh e e e the v


Does th th does the H go b before the A or after the A ?

Yeah. OK , good. Cuz you kn When you said people have the same problem , I thought  Cuz my H goes after the uh e e e the v

People have the inverse problem with my name.


Yeah. OK , good. Cuz you kn When you said people have the same problem , I thought  Cuz my H goes after the uh e e e the v

People have the inverse problem with my name.

OK. I always have to check , every time y I send you an email ,  a past email of yours ,  to make sure I 'm spelling your name correctly.


People have the inverse problem with my name.

OK. I always have to check , every time y I send you an email ,  a past email of yours ,  to make sure I 'm spelling your name correctly.


OK. I always have to check , every time y I send you an email ,  a past email of yours ,  to make sure I 'm spelling your name correctly.


But , when you abbreviate yourself as the " Basman " , you don't use any H 's.


But , when you abbreviate yourself as the " Basman " , you don't use any H 's.

" Basman " ? Yeah , it 's because of the chessplayer named Michael Basman , who is my hero.


" Basman " ? Yeah , it 's because of the chessplayer named Michael Basman , who is my hero.


How do you pronou How do you pronounce your name ?


What if I were  What if I were to call you Eva ?


What if I were  What if I were to call you Eva ?

I 'd probably still respond to it. I 've had people call me Eva , but I don't know.


What if I were  What if I were to call you Eva ?

I 'd probably still respond to it. I 've had people call me Eva , but I don't know.

No , not just Eva , Eva. Like if I u take the V and s pronounce it like it was a German V ?


I 'd probably still respond to it. I 've had people call me Eva , but I don't know.

No , not just Eva , Eva. Like if I u take the V and s pronounce it like it was a German V ?


No , not just Eva , Eva. Like if I u take the V and s pronounce it like it was a German V ?


Well , it 's just the difference between voiced and unvoiced.


I mean , I might slip out and say it accidentally. That 's all I 'm saying.


I mean , I might slip out and say it accidentally. That 's all I 'm saying.

Yeah. It doesn't matter what those nodes are , anyway , because we 'll just make the weights " zero " for now.


I mean , I might slip out and say it accidentally. That 's all I 'm saying.

Yeah. It doesn't matter what those nodes are , anyway , because we 'll just make the weights " zero " for now.

Yep. We 'll make them zero for now , because it  who  who knows what they come up with , what 's gonna come in there. OK. And , um , then should we start on Thursday ?


Yeah. It doesn't matter what those nodes are , anyway , because we 'll just make the weights " zero " for now.

Yep. We 'll make them zero for now , because it  who  who knows what they come up with , what 's gonna come in there. OK. And , um , then should we start on Thursday ?


Yep. We 'll make them zero for now , because it  who  who knows what they come up with , what 's gonna come in there. OK. And , um , then should we start on Thursday ?


OK. I 'll send an email , make a time suggestion.


OK. I 'll send an email , make a time suggestion.

Wait , maybe it 's OK , so that  that  that we can  that we have one node per construction. Cuz even in people , like , they don't know what you 're talking about if you 're using some sort of strange construction.


OK. I 'll send an email , make a time suggestion.

Wait , maybe it 's OK , so that  that  that we can  that we have one node per construction. Cuz even in people , like , they don't know what you 're talking about if you 're using some sort of strange construction.

Yeah , they would still c sort of get the closest , best fit.


OK. I 'll send an email , make a time suggestion.

Wait , maybe it 's OK , so that  that  that we can  that we have one node per construction. Cuz even in people , like , they don't know what you 're talking about if you 're using some sort of strange construction.

Yeah , they would still c sort of get the closest , best fit.

Well , yeah , but I mean , the  uh , I mean , that 's what the construction parser would do.


Wait , maybe it 's OK , so that  that  that we can  that we have one node per construction. Cuz even in people , like , they don't know what you 're talking about if you 're using some sort of strange construction.

Yeah , they would still c sort of get the closest , best fit.

Well , yeah , but I mean , the  uh , I mean , that 's what the construction parser would do.


Yeah , they would still c sort of get the closest , best fit.

Well , yeah , but I mean , the  uh , I mean , that 's what the construction parser would do.

Uh , I mean , if you said something completely arbitrary , it would f find the closest construction ,


Well , yeah , but I mean , the  uh , I mean , that 's what the construction parser would do.

Uh , I mean , if you said something completely arbitrary , it would f find the closest construction ,


Uh , I mean , if you said something completely arbitrary , it would f find the closest construction ,

right ? But if you said something that was completel er  h theoretically the construction parser would do that  But if you said something for which there was no construction whatsoever , n people wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about.


right ? But if you said something that was completel er  h theoretically the construction parser would do that  But if you said something for which there was no construction whatsoever , n people wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about.

Like " Bus dog fried egg. " I mean. You know.


right ? But if you said something that was completel er  h theoretically the construction parser would do that  But if you said something for which there was no construction whatsoever , n people wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about.

Like " Bus dog fried egg. " I mean. You know.

Or , if even something Chinese , for example.


Like " Bus dog fried egg. " I mean. You know.

Or , if even something Chinese , for example.

Or , something in Mandarin , yeah. Or Cantonese , as the case may be. What do you think about that , Bhaskara ?


Like " Bus dog fried egg. " I mean. You know.

Or , if even something Chinese , for example.

Or , something in Mandarin , yeah. Or Cantonese , as the case may be. What do you think about that , Bhaskara ?

I mean  Well  But how many constructions do  could we possibly have  nodes for ?


Or , if even something Chinese , for example.

Or , something in Mandarin , yeah. Or Cantonese , as the case may be. What do you think about that , Bhaskara ?

I mean  Well  But how many constructions do  could we possibly have  nodes for ?


Or , something in Mandarin , yeah. Or Cantonese , as the case may be. What do you think about that , Bhaskara ?

I mean  Well  But how many constructions do  could we possibly have  nodes for ?

No , we. Like , when people do this kind of thing.


I mean  Well  But how many constructions do  could we possibly have  nodes for ?

No , we. Like , when people do this kind of thing.

Oh , when p How many constructions do people have ?


No , we. Like , when people do this kind of thing.

Oh , when p How many constructions do people have ?


Oh , when p How many constructions do people have ?

Is it considered to be like in  are they considered to be like very , uh , sort of s abstract things ?


Is it considered to be like in  are they considered to be like very , uh , sort of s abstract things ?


Is it considered to be like in  are they considered to be like very , uh , sort of s abstract things ?

The  Yeah. Any  any form - meaning pair , to my understanding , is a construction.


The  Yeah. Any  any form - meaning pair , to my understanding , is a construction.


The  Yeah. Any  any form - meaning pair , to my understanding , is a construction.

And form u starts at the level of noun  Or actually , maybe even sounds.


And form u starts at the level of noun  Or actually , maybe even sounds.


And form u starts at the level of noun  Or actually , maybe even sounds.

Yeah. And goes upwards until you get the ditransitive construction.


And form u starts at the level of noun  Or actually , maybe even sounds.

Yeah. And goes upwards until you get the ditransitive construction.

And then , of course , the c I guess , maybe there can be the  Can there be combinations of the dit


Yeah. And goes upwards until you get the ditransitive construction.

And then , of course , the c I guess , maybe there can be the  Can there be combinations of the dit


Yeah. And goes upwards until you get the ditransitive construction.

And then , of course , the c I guess , maybe there can be the  Can there be combinations of the dit

Yeah. The " giving a speech " construction ,


And then , of course , the c I guess , maybe there can be the  Can there be combinations of the dit

Yeah. The " giving a speech " construction ,


Yeah. The " giving a speech " construction ,


Yeah. The " giving a speech " construction ,

Yeah. But , I mean , you know , you can probably count  count the ways. I mean.


Yeah. But , I mean , you know , you can probably count  count the ways. I mean.

It 's probab Yeah , I would s definitely say it 's finite.


Yeah. But , I mean , you know , you can probably count  count the ways. I mean.

It 's probab Yeah , I would s definitely say it 's finite.

And at least in compilers , that 's all that really matters , as long as your analysis is finite.


It 's probab Yeah , I would s definitely say it 's finite.

And at least in compilers , that 's all that really matters , as long as your analysis is finite.

How 's that ?  How it can be finite , again ?


And at least in compilers , that 's all that really matters , as long as your analysis is finite.

How 's that ?  How it can be finite , again ?

Nah , I can't think of a way it would be infinite.


And at least in compilers , that 's all that really matters , as long as your analysis is finite.

How 's that ?  How it can be finite , again ?

Nah , I can't think of a way it would be infinite.

Well , you can come up with new constructions.


How 's that ?  How it can be finite , again ?

Nah , I can't think of a way it would be infinite.

Well , you can come up with new constructions.

Yeah.  If the  if your  if your brain was totally non - deterministic , then perhaps there 's a way to get , uh , infin an infinite number of constructions that you 'd have to worry about.


Nah , I can't think of a way it would be infinite.

Well , you can come up with new constructions.

Yeah.  If the  if your  if your brain was totally non - deterministic , then perhaps there 's a way to get , uh , infin an infinite number of constructions that you 'd have to worry about.

But , I mean , in the  practical sense , it 's impossible.


Well , you can come up with new constructions.

Yeah.  If the  if your  if your brain was totally non - deterministic , then perhaps there 's a way to get , uh , infin an infinite number of constructions that you 'd have to worry about.

But , I mean , in the  practical sense , it 's impossible.

Right. Cuz if we have a fixed number of neurons  ?


Yeah.  If the  if your  if your brain was totally non - deterministic , then perhaps there 's a way to get , uh , infin an infinite number of constructions that you 'd have to worry about.

But , I mean , in the  practical sense , it 's impossible.

Right. Cuz if we have a fixed number of neurons  ?


But , I mean , in the  practical sense , it 's impossible.

Right. Cuz if we have a fixed number of neurons  ?

So the best - case scenario would be the number of constructions  or , the worst - case scenario is the number of constructions equals the number of neurons.


Right. Cuz if we have a fixed number of neurons  ?

So the best - case scenario would be the number of constructions  or , the worst - case scenario is the number of constructions equals the number of neurons.

Well , two to the power of the number of neurons.


So the best - case scenario would be the number of constructions  or , the worst - case scenario is the number of constructions equals the number of neurons.

Well , two to the power of the number of neurons.


Well , two to the power of the number of neurons.

No , wait. Not necessarily , is it ? We can end the  meeting. I just  Can't you use different var different levels of activation ? across , uh  lots of different neurons , to specify different values ?


No , wait. Not necessarily , is it ? We can end the  meeting. I just  Can't you use different var different levels of activation ? across , uh  lots of different neurons , to specify different values ?


No , wait. Not necessarily , is it ? We can end the  meeting. I just  Can't you use different var different levels of activation ? across , uh  lots of different neurons , to specify different values ?

Um , yeah , but there 's , like , a certain level of


Um , yeah , but there 's , like , a certain level of

Bandw - Yeah , so you can't do better than something.


Bandw - Yeah , so you can't do better than something.

Turn off the mikes. Otherwise it gets really tough for the tr


Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. We've received apologies for absence from Hefin David and Jack Sargeant. Vikki Howells is substituting for Jack Sargeant. So, Vikki, welcome; it's good to see you in the committee. Item 2 this afternoon is our eleventh evidence session on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome Barry Hughes, who is Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales; Kwame Biney, who is senior policy advisor, CPS; and Iwan Jenkins, who is head of the complex casework unit, Crown Prosecution Service Cymru Wales. So thank you all for attending this afternoon. We're really looking forward to hearing your views on the Bill. If you're happy, we'll go straight into questions from Members, and the first ones are from Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. I would like to start just by looking in general at how the law currently stands, and how do you think the law as it currently stands today, and specifically in terms of reasonable punishment—how does that protect children.


Thank you very much. I would like to start just by looking in general at how the law currently stands, and how do you think the law as it currently stands today, and specifically in terms of reasonable punishment—how does that protect children.

Sorry, can I just be clear? How does the law as it presently stands protect children?


Thank you very much. I would like to start just by looking in general at how the law currently stands, and how do you think the law as it currently stands today, and specifically in terms of reasonable punishment—how does that protect children.

Sorry, can I just be clear? How does the law as it presently stands protect children?

We have a range of offences created by the criminal law, going back to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the middle of the century before last, which provide for offences of assault against a variety of people, including, in particular, Acts such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides for offences that are specific to children. But the more general criminal legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act, does provide specifically for adults and children alike not to be subject to physical assault. In respect of children in particular, you'll be aware that we have section 58 of the Children Act 2004, which does make it a defence for a person accused of assaulting a child to argue that it was a case where they were acting only so as to impose reasonable punishment upon the child. That is a defence that is available for assault upon a child. By way of contrast, it is not available for an offence involving an adult. In that regard, it could be argued that children have fewer rights than adults.


Sorry, can I just be clear? How does the law as it presently stands protect children?

We have a range of offences created by the criminal law, going back to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the middle of the century before last, which provide for offences of assault against a variety of people, including, in particular, Acts such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides for offences that are specific to children. But the more general criminal legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act, does provide specifically for adults and children alike not to be subject to physical assault. In respect of children in particular, you'll be aware that we have section 58 of the Children Act 2004, which does make it a defence for a person accused of assaulting a child to argue that it was a case where they were acting only so as to impose reasonable punishment upon the child. That is a defence that is available for assault upon a child. By way of contrast, it is not available for an offence involving an adult. In that regard, it could be argued that children have fewer rights than adults.

Well, a review was undertaken by the Government back in 2007 that stated that retaining the law in its current form—that that would be the best thing to do because there's no evidence that it's not working satisfactorily. You are suggesting perhaps towards the end of your answer that there could be some change that's happened since 2007.


We have a range of offences created by the criminal law, going back to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the middle of the century before last, which provide for offences of assault against a variety of people, including, in particular, Acts such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides for offences that are specific to children. But the more general criminal legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act, does provide specifically for adults and children alike not to be subject to physical assault. In respect of children in particular, you'll be aware that we have section 58 of the Children Act 2004, which does make it a defence for a person accused of assaulting a child to argue that it was a case where they were acting only so as to impose reasonable punishment upon the child. That is a defence that is available for assault upon a child. By way of contrast, it is not available for an offence involving an adult. In that regard, it could be argued that children have fewer rights than adults.

Well, a review was undertaken by the Government back in 2007 that stated that retaining the law in its current form—that that would be the best thing to do because there's no evidence that it's not working satisfactorily. You are suggesting perhaps towards the end of your answer that there could be some change that's happened since 2007.

I think the law should reflect contemporary society and the law is evolutionary in nature, and should be evolutionary in nature. And just as if we go back 50 years there are types of behaviour that we might all have contemplated back then as being socially acceptable, many of those types of behaviour are not now, and the law has changed to reflect that. We don't need to go back a very long way to find, for example, that there was no such offence as raping one's married wife, and the law has changed to reflect the fact that that is simply not acceptable. And from what I've seen of the research, and I think back to the 2007 review, to which you've just referred, there is evidence within that review already that opinions are changing. And I've seen research more current than that that suggests that young people find it less acceptable to use reasonable punishment in chastising a child than do people of an older generation. Of course, as we move forward in time, the people who are young now are going to be the older adults of the future. So one would hope that the law will change to reflect the way in which people behave within society.


We have a range of offences created by the criminal law, going back to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in the middle of the century before last, which provide for offences of assault against a variety of people, including, in particular, Acts such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides for offences that are specific to children. But the more general criminal legislation, such as the Offences Against the Person Act, does provide specifically for adults and children alike not to be subject to physical assault. In respect of children in particular, you'll be aware that we have section 58 of the Children Act 2004, which does make it a defence for a person accused of assaulting a child to argue that it was a case where they were acting only so as to impose reasonable punishment upon the child. That is a defence that is available for assault upon a child. By way of contrast, it is not available for an offence involving an adult. In that regard, it could be argued that children have fewer rights than adults.

Well, a review was undertaken by the Government back in 2007 that stated that retaining the law in its current form—that that would be the best thing to do because there's no evidence that it's not working satisfactorily. You are suggesting perhaps towards the end of your answer that there could be some change that's happened since 2007.

I think the law should reflect contemporary society and the law is evolutionary in nature, and should be evolutionary in nature. And just as if we go back 50 years there are types of behaviour that we might all have contemplated back then as being socially acceptable, many of those types of behaviour are not now, and the law has changed to reflect that. We don't need to go back a very long way to find, for example, that there was no such offence as raping one's married wife, and the law has changed to reflect the fact that that is simply not acceptable. And from what I've seen of the research, and I think back to the 2007 review, to which you've just referred, there is evidence within that review already that opinions are changing. And I've seen research more current than that that suggests that young people find it less acceptable to use reasonable punishment in chastising a child than do people of an older generation. Of course, as we move forward in time, the people who are young now are going to be the older adults of the future. So one would hope that the law will change to reflect the way in which people behave within society.

Okay, thank you. We have heard evidence as a committee that this proposed law would provide a much clearer legal framework—that is, to take out this reasonable punishment defence, that then would make things much clearer for parents and professionals. Does the CPS have a view on that?


Well, a review was undertaken by the Government back in 2007 that stated that retaining the law in its current form—that that would be the best thing to do because there's no evidence that it's not working satisfactorily. You are suggesting perhaps towards the end of your answer that there could be some change that's happened since 2007.

I think the law should reflect contemporary society and the law is evolutionary in nature, and should be evolutionary in nature. And just as if we go back 50 years there are types of behaviour that we might all have contemplated back then as being socially acceptable, many of those types of behaviour are not now, and the law has changed to reflect that. We don't need to go back a very long way to find, for example, that there was no such offence as raping one's married wife, and the law has changed to reflect the fact that that is simply not acceptable. And from what I've seen of the research, and I think back to the 2007 review, to which you've just referred, there is evidence within that review already that opinions are changing. And I've seen research more current than that that suggests that young people find it less acceptable to use reasonable punishment in chastising a child than do people of an older generation. Of course, as we move forward in time, the people who are young now are going to be the older adults of the future. So one would hope that the law will change to reflect the way in which people behave within society.

Okay, thank you. We have heard evidence as a committee that this proposed law would provide a much clearer legal framework—that is, to take out this reasonable punishment defence, that then would make things much clearer for parents and professionals. Does the CPS have a view on that?

I think it will make things clearer. I'm not sure it will make them much clearer, because if we get into some of the—. It may be helpful to look at some examples at some stage. And when it comes to prosecuting, it's often the case that things aren't just black and white; there are multiple shades of grey in between. We know that the Children Act did introduce a degree of clarity, in that it removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for offences of causing actual bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and various incidents of child cruelty under the Children and Young Persons Act. In that sense, matters were clarified, because up until that point it was not entirely clear. There were a series of Court of Appeal cases that sought to clarify the law, but that was at a time, at the end of the 1990s, the start of the 2000s, when we had the European convention on human rights and we had a quickly developing body of case law. And the Children Act was brought in to reflect the direction that the case law was moving in. A decision was clearly made back then in the early 2000s not to include common assault in the same category as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm et cetera. So, there was a decision made back then that it was appropriate to do that. As we wind forward some 15 years, I have seen the research that suggests that some people see that the present legislation, and the way in which section 58 applies to reasonable chastisement for common assault of children—some people have interpreted that as saying that smacking is acceptable. I don't think that it is what it says, but there is a degree of confusion around that. And the reason why I say it's not as simple as that is, going back to my words a couple of minutes ago, it's rarely a case of being black and white; there are these degrees of grey. And removing that defence does make life clearer.


I think the law should reflect contemporary society and the law is evolutionary in nature, and should be evolutionary in nature. And just as if we go back 50 years there are types of behaviour that we might all have contemplated back then as being socially acceptable, many of those types of behaviour are not now, and the law has changed to reflect that. We don't need to go back a very long way to find, for example, that there was no such offence as raping one's married wife, and the law has changed to reflect the fact that that is simply not acceptable. And from what I've seen of the research, and I think back to the 2007 review, to which you've just referred, there is evidence within that review already that opinions are changing. And I've seen research more current than that that suggests that young people find it less acceptable to use reasonable punishment in chastising a child than do people of an older generation. Of course, as we move forward in time, the people who are young now are going to be the older adults of the future. So one would hope that the law will change to reflect the way in which people behave within society.

Okay, thank you. We have heard evidence as a committee that this proposed law would provide a much clearer legal framework—that is, to take out this reasonable punishment defence, that then would make things much clearer for parents and professionals. Does the CPS have a view on that?

I think it will make things clearer. I'm not sure it will make them much clearer, because if we get into some of the—. It may be helpful to look at some examples at some stage. And when it comes to prosecuting, it's often the case that things aren't just black and white; there are multiple shades of grey in between. We know that the Children Act did introduce a degree of clarity, in that it removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for offences of causing actual bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and various incidents of child cruelty under the Children and Young Persons Act. In that sense, matters were clarified, because up until that point it was not entirely clear. There were a series of Court of Appeal cases that sought to clarify the law, but that was at a time, at the end of the 1990s, the start of the 2000s, when we had the European convention on human rights and we had a quickly developing body of case law. And the Children Act was brought in to reflect the direction that the case law was moving in. A decision was clearly made back then in the early 2000s not to include common assault in the same category as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm et cetera. So, there was a decision made back then that it was appropriate to do that. As we wind forward some 15 years, I have seen the research that suggests that some people see that the present legislation, and the way in which section 58 applies to reasonable chastisement for common assault of children—some people have interpreted that as saying that smacking is acceptable. I don't think that it is what it says, but there is a degree of confusion around that. And the reason why I say it's not as simple as that is, going back to my words a couple of minutes ago, it's rarely a case of being black and white; there are these degrees of grey. And removing that defence does make life clearer.

What are the areas of grey that you refer to? Can you give a few examples?


Okay, thank you. We have heard evidence as a committee that this proposed law would provide a much clearer legal framework—that is, to take out this reasonable punishment defence, that then would make things much clearer for parents and professionals. Does the CPS have a view on that?

I think it will make things clearer. I'm not sure it will make them much clearer, because if we get into some of the—. It may be helpful to look at some examples at some stage. And when it comes to prosecuting, it's often the case that things aren't just black and white; there are multiple shades of grey in between. We know that the Children Act did introduce a degree of clarity, in that it removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for offences of causing actual bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and various incidents of child cruelty under the Children and Young Persons Act. In that sense, matters were clarified, because up until that point it was not entirely clear. There were a series of Court of Appeal cases that sought to clarify the law, but that was at a time, at the end of the 1990s, the start of the 2000s, when we had the European convention on human rights and we had a quickly developing body of case law. And the Children Act was brought in to reflect the direction that the case law was moving in. A decision was clearly made back then in the early 2000s not to include common assault in the same category as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm et cetera. So, there was a decision made back then that it was appropriate to do that. As we wind forward some 15 years, I have seen the research that suggests that some people see that the present legislation, and the way in which section 58 applies to reasonable chastisement for common assault of children—some people have interpreted that as saying that smacking is acceptable. I don't think that it is what it says, but there is a degree of confusion around that. And the reason why I say it's not as simple as that is, going back to my words a couple of minutes ago, it's rarely a case of being black and white; there are these degrees of grey. And removing that defence does make life clearer.

What are the areas of grey that you refer to? Can you give a few examples?

If you take an example—so, one of the examples that I've heard discussed has been a child—a young child; let's say a five-year-old child by the side of a road—who darts to go out in the path of moving traffic. The parent grabs hold of the child and pulls them back. Now, technically, taking hold of the child at that point is an assault, because it's an unwanted imposition of physical force. But no-one's going to say that's anything like an assault that should come to the criminal courts. Of course, that would be utter nonsense. There's no hostility; it's simply taking hold of a child to protect them. At that point, the parent then seeks to admonish the child, tells them off and smacks the child on the legs. Now, that would probably be seen under the present law as reasonable chastisement. Probably. But so much depends upon the circumstances, whether this is something that happens frequently with the child, the size of the child, the parent, the force of the slap, the way in which it's imposed. So, that, I would say, sits at one end of the spectrum. As we move towards the other end of the spectrum, we might have repeated smacking, shouting, maybe hitting the child over the head as well. So, there is a spectrum of offending. Towards one end of the spectrum we move much closer towards something that would be criminal in nature. There'll be a point at which it crosses the threshold from something that needs to be reported to the police, and the police would take some form of action, and then, as we move through the tiers, it'll reach a stage where the police think this is a case that should be prosecuted and they would bring it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. We would then decide the most appropriate means of dealing with it. And the absolute other end of the spectrum here is one where we decide it's an offence that we think is so serious that it should be charged and brought before a criminal court. That would be very much towards the serious end of the spectrum of the type of behaviour that I've just described to you. Does that help to illustrate that, at one end, it's relatively white and the other end it's relatively black, but in the middle we have the shades of grey?


I think it will make things clearer. I'm not sure it will make them much clearer, because if we get into some of the—. It may be helpful to look at some examples at some stage. And when it comes to prosecuting, it's often the case that things aren't just black and white; there are multiple shades of grey in between. We know that the Children Act did introduce a degree of clarity, in that it removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for offences of causing actual bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and various incidents of child cruelty under the Children and Young Persons Act. In that sense, matters were clarified, because up until that point it was not entirely clear. There were a series of Court of Appeal cases that sought to clarify the law, but that was at a time, at the end of the 1990s, the start of the 2000s, when we had the European convention on human rights and we had a quickly developing body of case law. And the Children Act was brought in to reflect the direction that the case law was moving in. A decision was clearly made back then in the early 2000s not to include common assault in the same category as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm et cetera. So, there was a decision made back then that it was appropriate to do that. As we wind forward some 15 years, I have seen the research that suggests that some people see that the present legislation, and the way in which section 58 applies to reasonable chastisement for common assault of children—some people have interpreted that as saying that smacking is acceptable. I don't think that it is what it says, but there is a degree of confusion around that. And the reason why I say it's not as simple as that is, going back to my words a couple of minutes ago, it's rarely a case of being black and white; there are these degrees of grey. And removing that defence does make life clearer.

What are the areas of grey that you refer to? Can you give a few examples?

If you take an example—so, one of the examples that I've heard discussed has been a child—a young child; let's say a five-year-old child by the side of a road—who darts to go out in the path of moving traffic. The parent grabs hold of the child and pulls them back. Now, technically, taking hold of the child at that point is an assault, because it's an unwanted imposition of physical force. But no-one's going to say that's anything like an assault that should come to the criminal courts. Of course, that would be utter nonsense. There's no hostility; it's simply taking hold of a child to protect them. At that point, the parent then seeks to admonish the child, tells them off and smacks the child on the legs. Now, that would probably be seen under the present law as reasonable chastisement. Probably. But so much depends upon the circumstances, whether this is something that happens frequently with the child, the size of the child, the parent, the force of the slap, the way in which it's imposed. So, that, I would say, sits at one end of the spectrum. As we move towards the other end of the spectrum, we might have repeated smacking, shouting, maybe hitting the child over the head as well. So, there is a spectrum of offending. Towards one end of the spectrum we move much closer towards something that would be criminal in nature. There'll be a point at which it crosses the threshold from something that needs to be reported to the police, and the police would take some form of action, and then, as we move through the tiers, it'll reach a stage where the police think this is a case that should be prosecuted and they would bring it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. We would then decide the most appropriate means of dealing with it. And the absolute other end of the spectrum here is one where we decide it's an offence that we think is so serious that it should be charged and brought before a criminal court. That would be very much towards the serious end of the spectrum of the type of behaviour that I've just described to you. Does that help to illustrate that, at one end, it's relatively white and the other end it's relatively black, but in the middle we have the shades of grey?

But that would mean that there could be more prosecutions at the softer end. Because if you're removing this—we'll probably come on to that.


What are the areas of grey that you refer to? Can you give a few examples?

If you take an example—so, one of the examples that I've heard discussed has been a child—a young child; let's say a five-year-old child by the side of a road—who darts to go out in the path of moving traffic. The parent grabs hold of the child and pulls them back. Now, technically, taking hold of the child at that point is an assault, because it's an unwanted imposition of physical force. But no-one's going to say that's anything like an assault that should come to the criminal courts. Of course, that would be utter nonsense. There's no hostility; it's simply taking hold of a child to protect them. At that point, the parent then seeks to admonish the child, tells them off and smacks the child on the legs. Now, that would probably be seen under the present law as reasonable chastisement. Probably. But so much depends upon the circumstances, whether this is something that happens frequently with the child, the size of the child, the parent, the force of the slap, the way in which it's imposed. So, that, I would say, sits at one end of the spectrum. As we move towards the other end of the spectrum, we might have repeated smacking, shouting, maybe hitting the child over the head as well. So, there is a spectrum of offending. Towards one end of the spectrum we move much closer towards something that would be criminal in nature. There'll be a point at which it crosses the threshold from something that needs to be reported to the police, and the police would take some form of action, and then, as we move through the tiers, it'll reach a stage where the police think this is a case that should be prosecuted and they would bring it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. We would then decide the most appropriate means of dealing with it. And the absolute other end of the spectrum here is one where we decide it's an offence that we think is so serious that it should be charged and brought before a criminal court. That would be very much towards the serious end of the spectrum of the type of behaviour that I've just described to you. Does that help to illustrate that, at one end, it's relatively white and the other end it's relatively black, but in the middle we have the shades of grey?

But that would mean that there could be more prosecutions at the softer end. Because if you're removing this—we'll probably come on to that.

Shall I address that in terms—? Okay. So, you are probably aware, but forgive me if I just explain quickly anyway, when we approach a file of material evidence submitted by the police we apply the code for Crown prosecutors, which has a two-stage test. The first stage is whether there's sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and the second stage is—. And you only get to the second stage if the first stage is satisfied. If there isn't enough evidence, we don't go on to consider whether it's in the public interest, because we wouldn't put an offence before the courts if we didn't think there was a realistic prospect of conviction. So, we only get on to the public interest stage once the evidential stage is satisfied. So, to return to the point, if we have an offence where, let's say, there is a light smack at the time, the police apply the same code before they bring a case to us. We don't always agree with the police; generally we do, but we don't always agree. It's a matter for them whether they refer a matter to the Crown Prosecution Service. So, if a police officer takes witness statements in relation to that case—the light smacking on the leg—at present it's unlikely that would come to the CPS, because they would look at it and say, 'Reasonable chastisement provides for a defence.' If that defence is removed, then obviously there is a greater possibility that it would be referred to the CPS. I would like to think—and I think this is what will probably happen in practice—that the police would take a view that the evidential test may have been satisfied because the defence had been removed, but it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. It may be that the police decide that it is—it may have been two smacks, three smacks, so it moves towards the end of the spectrum that would suggest that matters are becoming rather more serious. So, it may be referred to the CPS for a charging decision. We would then apply independently the same test, and we would probably conclude that the evidential stage was met in that instance because the defence no longer exists, which takes us on to considering the public interest. In the circumstances that I've described, every case is going to be unique on its own facts, but in the circumstances that I've described, if it is just a light smack and it's a one-off and there's no history of this, it would probably be the sort of offence we'd decide it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute.


If you take an example—so, one of the examples that I've heard discussed has been a child—a young child; let's say a five-year-old child by the side of a road—who darts to go out in the path of moving traffic. The parent grabs hold of the child and pulls them back. Now, technically, taking hold of the child at that point is an assault, because it's an unwanted imposition of physical force. But no-one's going to say that's anything like an assault that should come to the criminal courts. Of course, that would be utter nonsense. There's no hostility; it's simply taking hold of a child to protect them. At that point, the parent then seeks to admonish the child, tells them off and smacks the child on the legs. Now, that would probably be seen under the present law as reasonable chastisement. Probably. But so much depends upon the circumstances, whether this is something that happens frequently with the child, the size of the child, the parent, the force of the slap, the way in which it's imposed. So, that, I would say, sits at one end of the spectrum. As we move towards the other end of the spectrum, we might have repeated smacking, shouting, maybe hitting the child over the head as well. So, there is a spectrum of offending. Towards one end of the spectrum we move much closer towards something that would be criminal in nature. There'll be a point at which it crosses the threshold from something that needs to be reported to the police, and the police would take some form of action, and then, as we move through the tiers, it'll reach a stage where the police think this is a case that should be prosecuted and they would bring it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. We would then decide the most appropriate means of dealing with it. And the absolute other end of the spectrum here is one where we decide it's an offence that we think is so serious that it should be charged and brought before a criminal court. That would be very much towards the serious end of the spectrum of the type of behaviour that I've just described to you. Does that help to illustrate that, at one end, it's relatively white and the other end it's relatively black, but in the middle we have the shades of grey?

But that would mean that there could be more prosecutions at the softer end. Because if you're removing this—we'll probably come on to that.

Shall I address that in terms—? Okay. So, you are probably aware, but forgive me if I just explain quickly anyway, when we approach a file of material evidence submitted by the police we apply the code for Crown prosecutors, which has a two-stage test. The first stage is whether there's sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and the second stage is—. And you only get to the second stage if the first stage is satisfied. If there isn't enough evidence, we don't go on to consider whether it's in the public interest, because we wouldn't put an offence before the courts if we didn't think there was a realistic prospect of conviction. So, we only get on to the public interest stage once the evidential stage is satisfied. So, to return to the point, if we have an offence where, let's say, there is a light smack at the time, the police apply the same code before they bring a case to us. We don't always agree with the police; generally we do, but we don't always agree. It's a matter for them whether they refer a matter to the Crown Prosecution Service. So, if a police officer takes witness statements in relation to that case—the light smacking on the leg—at present it's unlikely that would come to the CPS, because they would look at it and say, 'Reasonable chastisement provides for a defence.' If that defence is removed, then obviously there is a greater possibility that it would be referred to the CPS. I would like to think—and I think this is what will probably happen in practice—that the police would take a view that the evidential test may have been satisfied because the defence had been removed, but it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. It may be that the police decide that it is—it may have been two smacks, three smacks, so it moves towards the end of the spectrum that would suggest that matters are becoming rather more serious. So, it may be referred to the CPS for a charging decision. We would then apply independently the same test, and we would probably conclude that the evidential stage was met in that instance because the defence no longer exists, which takes us on to considering the public interest. In the circumstances that I've described, every case is going to be unique on its own facts, but in the circumstances that I've described, if it is just a light smack and it's a one-off and there's no history of this, it would probably be the sort of offence we'd decide it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute.

But isn't it creating a new grey area in terms of the police now having to decide whether repeated smacking is in the public interest to at least refer it to you to decide about that? Do you know what I'm saying?


But that would mean that there could be more prosecutions at the softer end. Because if you're removing this—we'll probably come on to that.

Shall I address that in terms—? Okay. So, you are probably aware, but forgive me if I just explain quickly anyway, when we approach a file of material evidence submitted by the police we apply the code for Crown prosecutors, which has a two-stage test. The first stage is whether there's sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and the second stage is—. And you only get to the second stage if the first stage is satisfied. If there isn't enough evidence, we don't go on to consider whether it's in the public interest, because we wouldn't put an offence before the courts if we didn't think there was a realistic prospect of conviction. So, we only get on to the public interest stage once the evidential stage is satisfied. So, to return to the point, if we have an offence where, let's say, there is a light smack at the time, the police apply the same code before they bring a case to us. We don't always agree with the police; generally we do, but we don't always agree. It's a matter for them whether they refer a matter to the Crown Prosecution Service. So, if a police officer takes witness statements in relation to that case—the light smacking on the leg—at present it's unlikely that would come to the CPS, because they would look at it and say, 'Reasonable chastisement provides for a defence.' If that defence is removed, then obviously there is a greater possibility that it would be referred to the CPS. I would like to think—and I think this is what will probably happen in practice—that the police would take a view that the evidential test may have been satisfied because the defence had been removed, but it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. It may be that the police decide that it is—it may have been two smacks, three smacks, so it moves towards the end of the spectrum that would suggest that matters are becoming rather more serious. So, it may be referred to the CPS for a charging decision. We would then apply independently the same test, and we would probably conclude that the evidential stage was met in that instance because the defence no longer exists, which takes us on to considering the public interest. In the circumstances that I've described, every case is going to be unique on its own facts, but in the circumstances that I've described, if it is just a light smack and it's a one-off and there's no history of this, it would probably be the sort of offence we'd decide it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute.

But isn't it creating a new grey area in terms of the police now having to decide whether repeated smacking is in the public interest to at least refer it to you to decide about that? Do you know what I'm saying?

If this Bill goes through, then it will remove a defence, which will make it likely that the police will give this more consideration for referral to the CPS than beforehand, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will refer it, because it will depend on the facts of each individual case.