Expansion of Criminal Responsibility in Nsw

However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot

The New South Wales (NSW) criminal justice system has been separated into “two tiers of justice”. The two tiers of justice involve the separation of lower and higher courts, where the lower courts are comprised of Local courts and the higher courts are comprised of District and Supreme courts. The local courts role lies mainly in exercising summary jurisdiction whereas more serious indictable offences are dealt with in higher courts. However, there is more than just a jurisdictional divide and there are other aspects that significantly distinguish the lower courts from the higher courts.

3. For a crime to be committed, the prosecutor must be able to prove a criminal intent and an overt act to carry out that intent. Jack and Mary agreed to rob a series of banks. Prior to beginning their bank robbery spree, they were arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. What act did Jack and Mary do that justifies a finding that they committed the crime? Explain.

The defense may claim that the government should not be allowed to purposefully push you into committing the crime, such as DUI checkpoints and prostitution stings. The defense would never work if the jury believes that the offender had intent in the first place to commit the crime. If the defendant has a record of previous crimes associated with the one being prosecuted for, then the claim will not be successful. Furthermore, the defense may also claim that the defendant was under the influence. This defense claims that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and or drugs and did not have the mental capacity that he would otherwise have if

c) Constructive manslaughter, when the accused did not want to kill but did so accidentally during the commission of the crime.

E. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure, 7th Edition: Cengage Learning. p. 425. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/cps/default.aspx?SectionID=5980&tabid=154#1

Attempt extends responsibility to those who do not carry out an act, but show both a clear intention and a physical attempt to do so, responsible. This allows for a person who was prevented from committing a crime or failed to carry one out to face punishment. To prevent the principal of attempt being used on actions that were not intended to be a crime, clear intent must be proven to be the cause for the accused actions, and that it was not a result of recklessness.

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial

Conspiracy as discussed in our text is defined as a mixture of two or more people to accomplish an unlawful object or to accomplish a lawful object by unlawful means (McCormick, 2007, p.87).

In criminal law, this failure to act is identified as an omission and has been subjected to much controversy on its imposition of liability. However, before an analysis of whether or not it is fair to impose liability can take place, it is important to understand what an omission is, exceptions to the general rule of omissions which will include situations such as contractual duties, special relationships, voluntary assumption of care, creation of dangerous situations and statutory duties. Finally, the author will put forth arguments for criminalising failures to act and arguments against imposing liability for an omission before concluding why it is that the author feels that the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission are not too restrictive on individual

Although they may have failed and are relieved of the legal responsibility it still indicates the individual is capable and willing to commit the crime. However there would not be a moral or ethical dilemma if the defense were legal impossibility, because although the individual thought they were breaking the law their actions were legal. This shows an individual that is willing to break a law but has not broken any

Excuses - This term is defined by the textbook as "A legal defense in which the defendant claims that some personal condition or circumstance at the time of the act was such that he or she should be held accountable under the criminal law" (Schmalleger 121). It is the explanation for the performance or nonperformance of a particular act or a reason alleged in court as a basis for exemption or relief from guilt. In jurisprudence, an excuse is a defense to criminal charges that is distinct from an exculpation. The lawteacher.net website defines the term as "A claim that the environment around us, caused the defendant to commit criminal actions involuntarily, without there really being a criminal intent" (lawteacher.net). An example of an excuse would be the duress defense, which may excuse criminal actions committed by the defendant if he was being threatened by another person and reasonably feared for his life. Theft under these types of circumstances might be fully excusable, not taking the life of an innocent person would not be a valid excuse used under the duress defense. The duress defense excuse, in the case of murder, would not fully exculpate the defendant of criminal guilt, but it might serve to reduce liability from murder to

In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

In a departure from the traditional application of long standing case law, the close connection test was altered. The crucial change was to give rise to vicarious liability if the exchange involved a seamless chain of events . This development came following crucial developments in the Christian Brothers case. Where the vicarious liability relationship was extended to those analogous to employment . The other crucial development arose in Cox. In which Lord Reed extended vicarious liability for a person acting in their own interests. However he stressed the importance of the person acting in the scope of the activities assigned to him by the defendant. The defendant in assigning these duties generates a risk of the tort .