Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1801 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
Watson and Purnell's Criminal Law in New South Wales, Volume 1, in dealing with indictable offences, talks about the issue of intent and states, in terms of criminal liability and capacity, on page 21:
An act is intended when it is willed and when the ordinary consequences of the act are contemplated and desired.
It is generally necessary also that the act or default should be associated with a legally blameworthy condition of mind. This is traditionally expressed in the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent.
For a legally normal person to be guilty of a crime the prosecution must establish -
(a) that his conduct contributed either directly or indirectly to the act complained of;
(b) that this conduct on his part was voluntary;
(c) that he foresaw at the time that his acts or omissions might produce or help to produce certain consequences. The nature of these consequences is fixed by law for each specific crime.
The general rule in all the graver cases of crimes is that the accused is not guilty if he had an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of facts which, if they had really existed, would have made his act both legally and morally innocent.
That is a 1971 edition.
Mr Moore: Read that last part again.
MR STEFANIAK: I will read it again. Obviously, "he" means he or she in our more modern parlance. It states:
The general rule in all the graver cases of crimes is that the accused is not guilty if he -
or she -
had an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of facts, which if they had really existed, would have made his -
in this case her -
act both legally and morally innocent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .