> made explosives and detonated them remotely in his back garden by means of a mobile phone signal. Scary. But amount was similar to a firework, and he had don

> made explosives and detonated them remotely in his back garden by means of a mobile phone signal. Scary. But amount was similar to a firework, and he had done so several times before. And he's autistic. > liable to prosecution unless they can show that it was “for a lawful object” > can personal experimentation or own private education, absent some ulterior unlawful purpose, be regarded as a lawful object? They still had to prove that that was his purpose - the onus is on the defence. i.e. reversing assumption of innocence. The dissent, that the purpose of education is not a "purpose" is ridiculous. Yet, I bet the legislators didn't intend such a broad defence, and we'll quickly see amending legislation confining it, given terrorism fears.