CRIMINALLAWANDPROCEDUREA072DEFENCESLACKOFWILL/ACCIDENT/MISTAKEOFFACTIGNORANCEOFTHELAWHousekeepingT-Vals.2separateT-Valsforthelectureandusualoneforthetutorial.FirstlotofT-ValsinWeek9.AllAdvocacyExercisesinMootCourt2innewBuilding.ExceptFridayonestreaminMootCourt3newbuilding.BeEarly!Thursdayarvosession(bequiet!)theKirbyJmootwillberunning.LAWWEEKTODAY-PRESIDENTIALDEBATEat6pminLT4TOMORROW-STAFFVSSTUDENTDEBATE-5pminCerum Theatre Foyer(Topic:Allcriminalsshouldgotolawschool)WED/THURS-LSAELECTIONS-10am-3pmoutsidetheLawFacultyTHURSDAY-VISITFROMTHEHONORABLEJUSTICEMICHAELKIRBY-6pminCerumTheatreFRIDAY-LAWBALL-7pmattheMarriottHotel,SurfersParadise.LawBallsoldout,butifyougotaseatyourticketscannowbecollectedMondaytoThursday,10am-2pmoutsidetheLawFaculty.The2006-07LSApresentsHighCourtJusticeMichaelKirbyThisThursdayat6pmintheCerumTheatreAFREEpresentationfollowedbyrefreshmentsintheCerumFoyerJusticeKirbywillbespeakingaspartofLawWeekonthetopicFromlawschooltotheHighCourtinfiveeasydecades:areviewoflessonslearnedinpracticeofthelawDefenceofAccidentinthenewsLookatthenewspapertheSergeantHurlytrial.Runningaccidentashisdefence.ArticlefromChiefJusticedeJerseyonthedefenceofaccidentaftersomerecentcriticisminthenewspaper.ItisoniLearnunder“Resources”Iencourageyoualltolookatit.Defence-IntroductionTodaywearegoingtolookat;LackofWill(s23(1)(a)andInvoluntarinessAccident(s23(1)(b)Mistakeoffact(s24(1)IgnoranceoftheLaw/MistakeofLaw(s22(1)StudentscommonmistakesTherearetwocommonmistakesstudentsseemtomakewhendealingwithdefences1.StudentssecondguessthemselvesanddontdiscussaparticularOFFENCEbecausetheycanseethatthefactgiverisetoavalidDEFENCEagainstthatOFFENCE.Secondcommonmistake2.StudentswriteonlyaboutaDEFENCEORstartwritingdowntheOFFENCEbutbeforefinishingtheystartwritingabouttheDEFENCE.ITISIMPORTANTTOALWAYSREADANDUNDERSTANDWHATYOUAREBEINGASKEDbutifyouareaskedforwhatisthe“criminalliabilityandanypossibledefencesthatmightarise”makesurethatyoudealwiththemseparately!Whatisadefence?TheButterworthsLegalDictionarydefinesadefenceas;“The evidence offered by the accused to defeat a criminal charge”EricColvinetalsay;“those claims where, although it is accepted that the elements of the offence occurred, the accused seeks to assert some special justification or excuse for the conduct”Whatisadefence(cont)?Inthis(andotherCodestates)itisareferencetothosesectionsthatwillprovideajustificationoranexcuseforwhatwouldotherwisebecriminalconduct.Thesedefencesaresometimescalled“exculpatorydefences”ExculpatorydefencesThreecategoriesofexculpatorydefences:1.Defenceswherepersonalresponsibilityforwhatoccurredisdenied.2.Contextualdefences,wheredespitetheexistenceofthenecessaryfaulttheconducthasoccurredwithinabroadercontextwhichjustifiestheconduct.3.MentalImpairmentdefencessuchasinsanityandoneformofintoxication.WhatisthedifferencebetweenJustificationorExcuse?“Justification tends to be used in the context of conduct which, although perhaps harmful in some respects, is not itself regarded as wrong”“Excuse”tendstobeusedtodescribeconduct“that is regarded as wrongful, even though there may be extenuating factors which affect the legal responsibility of the conduct”.Whobearstheevidentiaryburden?Theprosecutionbringsthechargeandtheprosecutionmustprovethecharge“beyondareasonabledoubt”.Theaccusedhasonlytopointtosomeevidencesupportingthedefencethentheonusisontheprosecutiontodisprove(ornegative)thedefencebeyondareasonabledoubt.LACKOFWILLLackofWills23 Intention-motiveSubject to the express provision of this Code relating to negligent acts and omissions, a person is not criminally responsible for-a)an act or omission that occurs independently of the exercise of the persons will; orb)an event that occurs by accident AccidentSection23(1)(b)thedefenceofaccidenthasbeeninterpretedinthecaseofKaporonovski v The Queen (1973)133CLR209at231-2byGibbsJ(ashethenwas)whoexplainedthat:“It must be regarded as settled that an act occurs by accident within the meaning of the rule if it was a consequence which was not in fact intended or foreseen by the accused subjective and would not reasonably have been foreseen by an ordinary person objective”LackofWill(Cont)Thedefenceof“lackofwill”means“that the relevant physical actions were not under the mental control of the accused”.Thatdoesnotmeanthatapersonwillescapeliabilityforallunwilledconduct.UnwilledorinvoluntaryconductThereareseveralwaysthatunwilledorvoluntaryconductcanoccur.Oneisthroughexternalforces.SoApushesBintoC.AisguiltyofacommonassaultNOTB.Sothe“applicationofforce”byBwasnotdoneunderthe“will”ofB.(OSullivan v Fisher)Ugle v The Queen2002HCA25Unwilledorinvoluntaryconduct(cont.)Asecondisreflexaction.Thisneedstobedistinguishedfromspontaneousaction.Thethirdiswhenamentaldisorderproducesastateofautomatismwhentheaccusedactionsaredirectedbyanunconsciousmind.Ifthementalimpairmentisa“stateofmentaldisease”ora“naturalmentalinfirmity”thentheaccusedmyproceedunders27Insanitydefenceratherthans23(1)(a)lackofwill.Whatistheactforwhichthereistobealackofwill?Section23(1)(a)saythatapersonisnotcriminallyresponsibleforan“actoromissionthatoccursindependentlyoftheexerciseofthepersonswill.”Whenthesectionreferstoanact,itisreferringtosomephysicalmovement(Kaporonovski(1973)133CLR209,231-232).Definingwhattheactiscanbedifficultinacasewhere(forexample)thereareaseriesofactasareinvolvedinshootings.Murray v The Queen(2002)211CLR193WillandawarenessWillorvoluntarinessisanecessarybutnotalwaysasufficientconditionforcriminalresponsibility.Apersonmayactvoluntarilywithoutappreciatingthenatureorconsequencesoftheconduct,withoutbeingatfaultforthislackofawareness.MistakeofFactMistakeofFacts24 Mistake of Fact1)A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as the person believed to exist.MistakeofFact(cont)Thedefenseofmistakeoffactisnotnecessaryforoffencecontainingmentalelementoftheoffence.Forsuchoffencetheaccusedwouldnotneedtoraisethedefenseof“mistakeoffact”becausetoprovesuchastateofmindmeansthattherequiredmentalelementoftheseoffenceisnotmadeout.“not criminally responsible to any greater extent”Asuccessfulclaimundersection24willnotalwaysresultinacompleteacquittalbecauses24onlyprovidesthatthepersonwhomakesanhonestandreasonablemistakeistobetreatedasifthefactshadbeenastheythoughtthattheywere.Thusyoucanbeguiltyofalesserordifferentoffence.“reasonablebelief”Section24containsthewords“reasonablebelief”.Thismeansthatadefenseunders24isavailableonlywherethemistakewasanobjectivelyreasonableone.Alsos24usestheword“honest”.Thismeansthatitexcludes“inadvertenceorignorance”nomatterhow“reasonable”thestateofmindmightbe.GJ Coles & Coy Ltd v Goldsworthy 1985WAR183“beliefintheexistenceofanystateofthings”Thephraseins24hassometimesbeensaidtocoveronlymattersofpresentfactandtoexcludeanybeliefabouttheconsequencesorpotentialconsequenceofacts.Gould and Barnes 1960 QdR 283 at 291-2Section24(2)Section24(2)“The operation of this rule may be excluded by the express or implied provisions of the law relating to the subject”.ExclusionscanmeexpressorimpliedMcPherson v Cairns1977WAR28IgnoranceoftheLawIgnoranceoftheLaws22 Ignorance of the law-bona fide claim of right 1)Ignorance of the law does not afford any excuse for an act or omission which would otherwise constitute an offence, unless knowledge of the law by the offender is expressly declared to be an element of the offence.Whyisignoranceofthelawnoexcuse?Malainse-apersonshouldknowwhattheyaredoingiswrongwithouthavingtobetold.Mala prohibita(orlegalregulations)personsshouldkeepup-to-datewithwhatthecurrentlawis.Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 78 ALJR 957RequirementforpublicationofthelawSection22(3)(3) A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission done or made in contravention of a statutory instrument if, at the time of doing or making it, the statutory instrument was not known to the person and had not been published or otherwise reasonably made available or known to the public or those persons likely to be affected by it. DifferencebetweenIgnoranceofthefactsandignoranceofthelawAswehaveseenitissometimesadifficultdistinguishesbetweenignoranceofthelawandmistakeoffact.Exampletheoffenceofbigamy.Amistakenbeliefthatapersonisnotmarriagemightarisefrombothamistakeoflawandamistakeoffact.Ifapersonbelievesthattheirfirstspousewasdeadandremarriedthatwouldbeamistakeoffact(seeTolson(1889)23QBD168).Whereapersonhasamistakenbeliefthatanearliermarriagewasinvalidbecauseitwaswithafirstcousin,thatisamistakeoflaw(seeKennedy1923SASR183)ClaimofRightSection22;(2) But a person is not criminally responsible, as for an offence relating to property, for an act done or omitted to be done by the person with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud.ClaimofRight(cont)Aclaimofrightmaybeaclaimtousepropertyaswellasaclaimofownership(seeWalden v Hensler(1987)163CLR561).Aclaimofrightneednotbeareasonableonemoreoveritneednothaveanyfoundationinacceptedlegaldoctrine(seeWalden v Hensler(1987)29ACrimR85at114).Theclaimofrightmustbe“honest”andthatitmustbe“withoutintentiontodefraud”.HoweverusingdeceitfulorunlawfulmeanstoOBTAINthepropertydoesnotexcludethisdefense(Lenard(1992)57SASR164at177-8Walden v Hensler(1987)163CLR561