PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Liability to remain strict under civil aviation regulations
Old 10th Aug 2003, 13:11
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Perhaps more material from the Explanatory Statement (at: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/ess...0030806201.htm) would help:
Chapter 2 [of the Criminal Code Act 1995] adopts the common law approach of subjective fault based principles. It clarifies the traditional distinction of dividing offences into actus reus (the physical act, now referred to as the physical element) and mens rea (what the defendant thought or intended, now referred to as the fault element).

The prosecution bears the onus of proving each of the elements of an offence. Each offence must contain at least one physical element, and for every physical element of an offence, the prosecution must also prove a corresponding fault element. If legislation containing an offence provision does not specify a fault element for a physical element of the offence, the Criminal Code applies a default fault element under Section 5.6 of the Criminal Code.

In relation to an offence that operates as a strict liability offence, a fault element can only be dispensed with in relation to the offence (or in relation to a particular element of an offence) if the offence specifies that it is a strict liability offence (or that a particular element is a strict liability element). Strict liability offences are offences where proof of a fault element is not required. The defence of mistake of fact is available for a strict liability offence (or a strict liability element of an offence).
[bolding added]

Short point: In order to convict you for doing something that attracts strict liability, the prosecution does not have to prove you intended to do that thing. E.g In a prosecution of someone for going around the circuit in the wrong direction, the prosecution does not have to prove that you intended to go around the circuit in the wrong direction.
Creampuff is offline