"Contrary to the submission advanced by Senior Counsel on behalf of the Authority, namely that s 13 cannot be read consistently with the incorporation into it of the element of “fault” as suggested by Senior Counsel for Channel Seven, there is respectfully considered to be no such difficulty. There is no difficulty in construing s 13 as incorporating the concept that the offence of “broadcasting a tobacco advertisement” may only be made out if (for example) a broadcaster has “intentionally” done so or been “reckless” as to that which it broadcasts. The submission, perhaps faintly advanced, that such a construction of s 13 would make the offence more difficult to prove where broadcasters have access to legal advice in respect to all or most of that which is broadcast is without substance. The offence means what it says. If there be any difficulty in proving a contravention of s 13 in the manner advanced by Channel Seven, that is a matter which the Legislature can address if it so wishes. In the meantime, perceived difficulties of proof provide no reason to construe s 13 other than according to its terms and in a manner which incorporates as an element of the offence the definition of a “tobacco advertisement” as found in s 9. But any such difficulties as were asserted on behalf of the Authority may well prove to be more illusory than real. The preference on the part of some prosecutors to undertake proof of mere “recklessness”, for example, rather than proof of “intention” may be understood; but the perceived ease or difficulty of proof provides no reason to construe s 13 other than according to its terms."