Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Miranda v SSHD unacceptable consequences of the literal interpretation, examples of which I have mentioned above. 51. To a large extent, I accept Mr Ryder’s submissions. First, the literal interpretation involves according to the word “terrorism” a meaning which is far removed from its ordinary meaning. The submission which I have summarised at para 48 above is a powerful one. But I accept that it is not decisive. Secondly, the fact that the literal interpretation potentially gives rise to unpalatable consequences of the kind that I have described raises a serious question as to whether it can have been intended by Parliament. It is true that it is most unlikely in the real world that measures of the extreme kind described at para 47 above would actually be taken against someone seeking to publish an article, at any rate unless they intended the publication to seriously endanger life (or were reckless as to whether it would have that effect). But the fact that these ancillary offences and powers exist is relevant to what Parliament must be taken to have intended acts of terrorism to mean. Thirdly, the interpretation does not reflect the aim and intention of the promoters of the Bill as expressed to Parliament. 52. In my view, these three factors when taken together provide a powerful reason for rejecting the literal interpretation. The question remains, however, how as a matter of analysis and construction one can arrive at the interpretation for which Mr Ryder contends. 53. I would approach the matter in this way. Three categories of action are described in section 1(2). The first is action falling within section 1(2)(a) and (b). This is the only category which is defined exclusively by reference to the nature of the action itself. It is not an ordinary use of language to describe a person as being “involved” in violence or damage to property if he is not aware that he is being so involved or if what he does is accidental. On this point, I respectfully disagree with what Laws LJ said at para 29 of his judgment (see para 40 above). The second category is action falling within section 1(2)(c) and (d). This is defined by reference to the consequences of the action: endangering a person’s life and creating a serious risk to health or safety. The third category is action falling within section 1(2)(e). This is action which is defined by reference to its aim: action which is designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system. 54. The third category of action is, therefore, clearly defined by reference to the state of mind of the actor. For the reasons that I have given, I consider that the first category of action must also be considered as importing a mental element. I accept that, on a literal interpretation, the second category could include acts which endanger a person’s life even if the actor is not aware that they do. But such an interpretation would dispense with the need for a mental element in the second category, whereas it is required in the first and third categories. It is unlikely that Parliament would have intended to make such a distinction between the three categories. If Parliament had intended to provide that a person commits an act of terrorism where he unwittingly or accidentally does something which in fact endangers another person’s life, I would have expected that, in view of the serious consequences of classifying a person as a terrorist, it would have spelt this out clearly. 55. It does not follow that publication of material cannot amount to an act of terrorism. If (i) the material that is published endangers a person’s life (other than that of the