Module 2 Exam Notes CHAP 10 - Roles and range of defences Establishing criminal responsibility . According to s 2 QCC 'an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or making the omission liable to punishment is called an offence' Intention . The intention of the accused is usually inferred from their actions and the surrounding circumstances -> Willmot no 2 · The common law principle of mens rea does not apply in Queensland. > Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977 o Unless intention is expressly declared to be an element of the offence, the resulted intention is immaterial > s 23(2) · Direct intention: o The accused desired to bring about a certain result or consequence by the act/ omission > Willmot (no 2) [1985] · Inferred intention: o The absence of direct evidence proving the accused's intention for the act/ omission can be substituted by the accumulation of 'circumstantial evidence' -> R v Plomp and R v Baden-Clay) Criminal Negligence · Sometimes to establish CR the QCC require negligence to be a specific element of an offence > s 328 (Negligent acts causing harm) · The QCC have established some basic duties of all persons. · Negligence is assessed objectively > Intention and foreseeability (s 23 would not apply, if the accused is found objectively guilty, then s 23 would not apply anyways) o Negligence itself is not an offence but flows onto other offences such as manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and bodily harm. Defences/ Excuses NOTE: Unless otherwise specifically excluded or modified, the excuses and defences in chapter 5 of the QCC apply to all criminal offences created in Queensland Justification and excuses · R v Prow (1989) defined the difference between terminology used in the QCC regarding criminal responsibility:
o Where it states 'it is lawful for ... ' - conduct is justified (defence/ justification), the conduct is considered to be lawful. o Where it states 'not criminal responsibility for ... ' - this is an excuse, the conduct is unlawful but is excused by law. · Justifications (defences) or excuses used by the accused are called Exculpatory Defences 3 categories of exculpatory defences 1) An excuse denies criminal responsibility for what occurred: · Lack of will > s 23(1)(a) · Accident -> s 23(1)(b) · Mistake of fact > s 24(1) · Claim of rights > s 22(2) 2) Contextual defence, where special circumstances relieve the accused of criminal responsibility: · Self-defence -> ss 271-3 · Compulsion or emergency > s 25 3) Mental impairment: · Usually used to deny intent · Can affect one's ability to make decision or moral judgements · May permit type of insanity > s 27(1) · May permit type of intoxication > s 28(1) Mental impairment and criminal responsibility . The standard rule relating to criminal responsibility assumes an accused with normal mental capacity when the conduct is carried out. o It is presumed that the accused has the capacity to understand what