First, then, the constitutional aspects, as I promised. It goes without saying that there are circumstances in which judges can make law—in the case of civil wrongs, aka torts, also in situations where statute law is unclear, or there are gaps, or interpretation is needed. It's reasonable—indeed, conventional—that if there are inconsistencies between domestic law and international law, where there is a lack of clarity about whether Parliament had intended such an inconsistency, that the judges will give the bounce of the ball, so to speak, in favour of the interpretation that be consistent with the international obligations. However, I think it's been pretty clear, and generally acknowledged on both sides of the debate for and against three strikes, that many of our courts—and I choose my words carefully—have decided to prefer an interpretation of the three strikes legislation that seems at odds to most observers with the clear intention of Parliament at the time that it passed that statute. 