VIC No Intent need as a defence

[Hayden78]

Is anyone able to help me find the criminal act that covers no intent as a defence.And what would i need to show to use this as a defence any help much appreciated thamks.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

It doesn’t work that way. First, for the most part, the prosecution has to prove their case. That involves proving all the required elements of the crime, and where relevant to the crime that will involve intent. If they can’t prove intent, the crime is not capable of being proven.

Although fairly rare, not all crimes have an intent element. In those cases, ‘proving’ you did not intend the act would make no difference. Intent would be irrelevant.

 

[Tony Danos]

I agree with Rob. Crimes require proof that the act was done and it was intended. It comes down to proof.

 

[Tim W]

There is a class of offence that is an exception to the above.
So called "strict liability" offences do not require intent to be proved in the same way as those that Tony and Rob are referring to.

Much depends on what the actual offence was.

 

[Hayden78]

Thank you you so much for your informative replies. Given the information I have now been given my belief is I would I have a more than a fair chance of the charges being dismissed which is what I informed the police officer on being charged. How ever after a very brief on the spot interview she informed that she would be recommending me for a diversion order,thus when the summons arrived I did receive on option to a accept a diversion order with a recommendation that I pay a donation. Yes i did commit the offence I have always acknowledged this fact,how ever the evidence shows there was clearly no intent and I can most likely prove that my actions were not careless or reckless how ever the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Am I looking a gift horse in the mouth and being ungrateful in not appreciating the diversion order which would result in no conviction give a donation and life goes on or is it a case that the police officer knows it will be difficult for her to get a conviction.When I assess my situation either i give a small donation or I must pay $$$ to uphold my right. The law in this particular instance a bit like muhammad ali left hook it aint fair and it aint right.

 

[Tony Danos]

The fact that you have been offered a diversion means that the offence is minor and you have no priors. At a diversion you admit the facts of the offence. Up to you.

 

[Scruff]

Donations? Muhammad Ali?

Sorry mate, but stop beating around the bush and tell these guys what the offence is. So far, all I see is you holding back the most important part of your question and these guys trying to help by tip-toeing around what might or might not be applicable.

The simple fact is that without knowing what the offence is, no-one here or anywhere else could possibly know if intent is an essential element of the offence in question.

Sorry guys, but someone had to say it.

 

[Hayden78]

Thank you so much in your honest reply Scruff unfortunately the informant has recommended on the diversion order that the penalty be a donation Tony Danos perhaps being more familiar with Victorian diversion orders would be well aware of this. As for the offence Tony hit the mark it is only a minor offence how ever should I plead and fail it would result in a criminal record. As for the offence Tim W was very helpful with his strict liability offences,thus i believe this forum has been helpful and I am very grateful thanks again to Tony and Tim

 

[Tim W]

You (and those who read this later)
may care to read this.