Old 22nd Dec 2015, 09:44
  #85 (permalink)  
kaz3g
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 713
It seems that even the Courts sometimes blur the distinction between strict and absolute liability. See the discussion by Vincent J in Skase where HH held that s49(1)(f) of the Road Safety Act is one of strict liability but then held that a defence of mistake is not available.
http://www.magistratescases.com.au/L...0Liability.pdf At (m).

However, a Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee did a pretty fair job and correctly differentiated strict and absolute by acknowledging that mistake is a defence in strict liability but not absolute. It even made some recommendations which probably account for the boringly repetitious statement at the end of each CASR telling us the offence is one of strict liability.

Chapter 7 - Application of absolute and strict liability offences in Commonwealth legislation ? Parliament of Australia

CASA must have read that bit but not got as far as the bits about breaching fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence.

Kaz

Last edited by kaz3g; 22nd Dec 2015 at 09:59.
kaz3g is offline