Fiji Magistrates Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia
Fiji Magistrates Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia Fiji Magistrates Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia
Involuntary Acts A defendant will not be criminally responsible for acts or omissions that are involuntary, not only because there is a lack of the required mens rea for the offence but also because involuntary movements cannot constitute the necessary actus reus of any offence. An example of an involuntary act would be if Sami was thrown out of a shop window by his enemies and landed on a car window. Sami would not be criminally responsible for the damage to the car because it was not Sami act that led to the damage of the car. Automatism Automatism is when a defendant is not consciously in control of his or her own mind and body. This defence is limited to cases where there is a total loss of voluntary control. Impaired or reduced control is not enough. The defence of automatism may be invalid when the defendant is at fault for falling into the condition in the first place. The prosecution would have to prove the defendant was reckless as to what would happen if he or she fell into the condition for it not to be a defence. The state of automatism can arise from: • concussion; • sleep disorders; • acute stress; • some forms of epilepsy; • some forms of neurological and physical ailments. The prosecution bears the legal burden of proving that the actions of the defendant were voluntary and that the defence of automatism does not apply. However, the defendant must give sufficient evidence to raise the defence that his or her actions were involuntary: Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1961) 46 CrAppR 1, 21. The evidence of the defendant will rarely be enough to raise the defence of automatism. Expert medical evidence is required: Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1961) 46 CrAppR 1, 21. Accidents A person is not criminally responsible for an event that occurs by accident: s9 Penal Code. The event must not be intended by the defendant. An event is an accidental outcome of the willed act, which then leads to a result. Fiji Magistrates Bench Book April 2004
To raise a defence of accident, it is the event which must be proved to be accidental and not that the result was accidental: R v Rakaimua [1996] Criminal Case No. 24 of 1995; Timbu-Kolian v The Queen (1968) 119 CLR 47. The event must not have been able to be easily foreseen by the defendant under the circumstances. Would such an event have been easily foreseen by an ordinary person in the same circumstances. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the act or omission was not an accident, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when the defence of accident is raised by the defendant, he or she must point to some evidence in support of the defence. Points to note from s9 Penal Code Unless intention to cause a particular result is expressly declared to be an element of the offence committed, the result intended to be caused by an act or omission is immaterial: s9 Penal Code. • A person cannot raise as a defence that they did not intend a certain result when they do an act or omit to do an act. • Also, intention as to the result of an act or omission does not have to be proven as an element of an offence unless it has been expressly provided to be an element of the offence. Unless expressly declared, the motive by which a person acts or omits to do an act, or to form an intention, is immaterial so far as it regards criminal responsibility: • The underlying reasons (motive) for why a person has done an act or omission or why they have formed an intention to commit an offence does not need to be considered when determining criminal responsibility. • A person cannot use lack of motive as a defence, nor does the prosecution have prove motive as an element of an offence, unless it has been expressly declared to be an element of an offence. 2.4 Mistake of Fact: s10 Penal Code A person who acts or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if things were as he or she believed them to exist: s10 Penal Code. This rule may be excluded by the express or implied provisions of the law relating to the subject: s10 Penal Code. Fiji Magistrates Bench Book April 2004
- Page 31 and 32: in suits wherein the validity of an
- Page 33 and 34: By application of a Magistrate Subj
- Page 35 and 36: Fiji Magistrates Bench Book April 2
- Page 37 and 38: Also, see State v Peniasi Kata Cr.
- Page 39 and 40: For the defendant to have a fair tr
- Page 41 and 42: An exception for the requirement fo
- Page 43 and 44: 4: JUDICIAL CONDUCT Fiji Magistrate
- Page 45 and 46: 1 Ethical Principles On appointment
- Page 47 and 48: 1.5 “Without Fear or Favour, Affe
- Page 49 and 50: d) Conflict of interest You must di
- Page 51 and 52: 1. Prior notice • You should be s
- Page 53 and 54: • Avoid a patronising and or undu
- Page 55 and 56: 5: EVIDENCE Fiji Magistrates Bench
- Page 57 and 58: 1 Introduction Evidence refers to t
- Page 59 and 60: By definition, documentary evidence
- Page 61 and 62: The distinction between ‘in Court
- Page 63 and 64: Spouses The spouse of the defendant
- Page 65 and 66: 7.3 Leading Questions A general rul
- Page 67 and 68: • Sometimes the witness will show
- Page 69 and 70: If the legal burden is borne by the
- Page 71 and 72: In a voir dire hearing, evidence sh
- Page 73 and 74: • ensure that the witness who giv
- Page 75 and 76: 8.8 Character Evidence Admissibilit
- Page 77 and 78: 6: CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY Fiji Mag
- Page 79 and 80: 1 Introduction The Penal Code is th
- Page 81: An honest claim of right is when a
- Page 85 and 86: It is the defendant who bears the o
- Page 87 and 88: 3 Intoxication must also be taken i
- Page 89 and 90: Compulsion by threats Compulsion by
- Page 91 and 92: • Force may include killing the a
- Page 93 and 94: Enabling or Aiding: s21(1)(b) Penal
- Page 95 and 96: Counselling The normal meaning of c
- Page 97 and 98: Withdrawal Sometimes there may be a
- Page 99 and 100: 4.3 Accessories After the Fact: ss3
- Page 101 and 102: • At least two persons must agree
- Page 103 and 104: Fiji Magistrates Bench Book April 2
- Page 105 and 106: 2.2 Endorsing the Criminal Evidence
- Page 107 and 108: • Deal with matters that counsel
- Page 109 and 110: In the unique case of Reginam v Net
- Page 111 and 112: When the alleged offence occurs in
- Page 113 and 114: See Akuila Kuoutawa & R Labasa Crim
- Page 115 and 116: 12 Case Management The American Bar
- Page 117 and 118: 8: PRE-TRIAL MATTERS Fiji Magistrat
- Page 119 and 120: 1 The Criminal Process The followin
- Page 121 and 122: In the event of a person whom such
- Page 123 and 124: If the charge is defective: • ret
- Page 125 and 126: 3.2 Warrant of Arrest Notwithstandi
- Page 127 and 128: If, in the course of trial, the evi
- Page 129 and 130: Fiji Magistrates Bench Book April 2
- Page 131 and 132: 2 Non-Appearance by the Defendant I
To raise a defence <strong>of</strong> accident, it is the event which must be proved to be accidental and not that<br />
the result was accidental: R v Rakaimua [1996] Criminal Case No. 24 <strong>of</strong> 1995; Timbu-Kolian v<br />
The Queen (1968) 119 CLR 47.<br />
The event must not have been able to be easily foreseen by the defendant under the<br />
circumstances.<br />
Would such an event have been easily foreseen by an ordinary person in the same circumstances.<br />
The prosecution bears the burden <strong>of</strong> proving that the act or omission was not an accident, beyond<br />
a reasonable doubt. However, when the defence <strong>of</strong> accident is raised by the defendant, he or she<br />
must point to some evidence in support <strong>of</strong> the defence.<br />
Points to note from s9 Penal Code<br />
Unless intention to cause a particular result is expressly declared to be an element <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence<br />
committed, the result intended to be caused by an act or omission is immaterial: s9 Penal Code.<br />
• A person cannot raise as a defence that they did not intend a certain result when they do<br />
an act or omit to do an act.<br />
• Also, intention as to the result <strong>of</strong> an act or omission does not have to be proven as an<br />
element <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence unless it has been expressly provided to be an element <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>of</strong>fence.<br />
Unless expressly declared, the motive by which a person acts or omits to do an act, or to form an<br />
intention, is immaterial so far as it regards criminal responsibility:<br />
• The underlying reasons (motive) for why a person has done an act or omission or why<br />
they have formed an intention to commit an <strong>of</strong>fence does not need to be considered when<br />
determining criminal responsibility.<br />
• A person cannot use lack <strong>of</strong> motive as a defence, nor does the prosecution have prove<br />
motive as an element <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence, unless it has been expressly declared to be an<br />
element <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />
2.4 Mistake <strong>of</strong> Fact: s10 Penal Code<br />
A person who acts or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in<br />
the existence <strong>of</strong> any state <strong>of</strong> things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any<br />
greater extent than if things were as he or she believed them to exist: s10 Penal Code.<br />
This rule may be excluded by the express or implied provisions <strong>of</strong> the law relating to the subject:<br />
s10 Penal Code.<br />
<strong>Fiji</strong> <strong>Magistrates</strong> <strong>Bench</strong> <strong>Book</strong> April 2004
Change language