Thank you. Having had a brief excursion into the definition of public interest, what that helps us do is it helps us to inform the debate about when the end justifies the means. We've had a witness recently who explained that in his opinion there would always be some limits on the means. He gave an extreme example: a journalist wouldn't murder somebody in order to get at a story, or whatever the magnitude of the public interest. Professor Barnett has introduced the concept of proportionality as perhaps informing that debate.
Could I now invite your contributions as to where and how the line is drawn as to when the end justifies the means. Is it necessarily on a case-by-case basis or are there useful pointers that can help us with that?