If errors of law don't attract the honest and reasonable claim, what's going on with offences of driving when suspended or disqualified contrary to Road Safety Act s 30? If the status of a liquor licence is a matter of law, as the High Court found in Bergin v Stack, why should the status of …
Continue reading Mistakes of fact, mistakes of law (revisited)
Dr Manhattan's post Mistake of fact, or mistake of law? a couple of weeks ago didn't get around to discussing Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493; [2004] HCA 30, the High Court decision about the West Australian fisherman who was fishing where he shouldn't have been. There's a limit to how much we can …
In DPP v Kailahi (2008) 50 MVR 410; [2008] NSWSC 752, the accused was charged with disqualified driving. When the police pulled her over she told them (and the court accepted) she believed she was unlicensed (rather than disqualified).The magistrate dismissed the charge.The prosecution appealed.The Supreme Court ruled the claim of honest and reasonable mistake …
An accused person should be acquitted if when they allegedly offended they honestly and reasonably believed in a state of facts that — if true — would have made their acts innocent: Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536.The requirement that the mistake be both honest and reasonable can make life hard for the accused. …
An accused who, at the time of the alleged offence possessed an honest and reasonable positive belief in a state of facts which, if true, would have rendered their acts innocent, is entitled to an acquittal: Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536.After the majority decision in CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25, it …