But it also says: > It could in some cases criminalise those who did not suspect the articles would be used for serious crime. The justification for criminalis

But it also says: > It could in some cases criminalise those who did not suspect the articles would be used for serious crime. The justification for criminalising such people, who lack actual suspicion, is that the articles named in legislation are so closely associated with serious crime that it is appropriate to expect that those who are involved in making, modifying, supplying or offering to supply, or who are found in possession of such articles have at least a reasonable standard of awareness of the signs of criminal activity. And then they say (in bold): > Both options intend to better equip law enforcement agencies to target people supplying the tools of organised crime and people found in possession of those tools. And in the EncroChat example they provided to justify their proposal, they say they lacked "sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences" so they let him go. Presumably under the proposed law they would still be able to get him for possessing the EncroChat device.