Strict Liability - it's no longer Us, it's You
 

In the new era of strict liability and the Captain being held responsible for a multitude of potential offenses, many of which are associated to tasks performed by others how does touchy freely new age thinking fit in?

When held PERSONABLY LIABLE, will Captains change the way they COMMAND?

'Strict Liability' means that the cops or the DPP do not have to prove 'intent'.
The two parts of an 'offence' are, mens rea (evil intent) and 'actus reus' (an action for want of too much explanation). If either of these elements is missing, then there is no 'offence', in simplistic terms.

'Strict Liability' has existed forever in all sorts of legislation, not just aviation.

So, no, nothing has changed when it comes to the Captain's responsibility.

Surely there are more pub fights, brawls and rock apes in Darwin to keep you occupied rather than trawl here? Think of a job in the big smoke man!

Aviation is not going to do it for you.

Actually, there are four parts to the committal of an "offence": actus reus, mens rea, causation and injury to the State.

Lex, if the actus reus is an offence (legislative or common law) and the mens reus is present then you have causation. The crime to the person is considered to be a crime against the State which is why the state prosecutes (in the vast majority of cases).

Stop it you sexy lawyers! I'm getting hard ;)

Just ask any Essendon player about Strict Liability.....

Strict liability means that you can have an excuse for breaking the regulation.
Whereas absolute liability means there can be no excuse.

Eddie,

I think I know what you are saying; however, 'strict liability' means that 'intent' does not have to be proved by the police or whomsoever, but officials still have to prove that you actually DID do whatever they claim you did (the 'actus reus').

The classic example is speeding. The police do NOT have to prove that you left home in the morning and INTENDED (mens rea; volition) to speed down the road to work in your car so that when they stop you at a speed trap, it is irrelevant whether you MEANT to speed; the answer to that proposition is nugatory.

The police still have to prove you actually DID exceed the speed limit, though.

CASA's regulations are no different to other legislation in OZ in that Australian legal drafting regulations (I think they are 'regulations' now since the demise of the OLDP and the rise of the OPC) require that the 'penalty' and conditional statements are written as close as possible to the regulation/law that gives rise to the offence.

NZ for instance, does not have this requirement which is why there is a seperate 'offence' document (for simplicity) that has to be read in conjunction with the applicable aviation regulations.

A better example is drink driving. In some states it is an offence of strict liability and if you can prove you had a reasonable excuse, that may mitigate the offence. In Queensland it is an offence of absolute liability. No reasonable excuse accepted.

Er,
You are at home, having a couple of beers with your family and you suddenly get told over the TV to leave your home immediately due, e.g. a bush fire alert.
You grab everyone, mum and the kids, and sprint for the car.
Stopped by the police. Drunk? Yes. Force majeur? Most probably.
You may very well be found 'guilty' of DUI, but the question is whether you are treated as a 'vanilla' drink driver when it comes to the judgement.
I think you would be cool but I could be wrong.
Sympathy to anyone who has been in the bush fire situation without the beers, let alone someone who needed to drive when they had absolutely no intention of driving when they opened the first beer.