They're not claiming to be ignorant of the law. They're claiming they made every effort to obey the law; they thought they were obeying the law. It turns out they were wrong.

Many crimes require both actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind).

So if I take a law, and secretly reinterpet it beyond reason, then do my best to prevent anyone from finding out my reinterpretation... then it's all good, no criminal charges for me

As long as you can convince the prosecutor or jury you're not guilty, you can shoot someone on the street in plain sight with video evidence and get off free or without charges.

It's up to the prosecutor whether he'll be persuaded by your elaborate scheme. I'm sure he's heard worse.

> As long as you can convince the prosecutor or jury you're not guilty, you can shoot someone on the street in plain sight with video evidence and get off free or without charges.

For those who don't know, this is called jury nullification.

For the jury it is. For the prosecutor it's called prosecutorial discretion.

Being formally acquitted means you can't be charged later; this is not true of just not being prosecuted in the first place.

First, does the CSIS even provide for criminal charges? Second, what is a "beyond reason" interpretation of "strictly necessary?"

Note that in the U.S. at least there is a "rule of lenity"--requiring ambiguous criminal statutes to be interpreted in favor of defendants. I assume there is something similar in Canadian law.

Try telling that to a cop.

"I honestly thought that the speed limit was 55. I didn't see any signs saying it was 35."

The cop's answer? "Too bad. Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

That surely is a question to determine on a case by case basis. Of which there must be billions.

Instead, the CSIS is being treated as some sort of legal black hole. Where is the police raid?