Jane Brockington VCGLR subpoenaed to give evidence she is protecting corrupt employee Adam Toma
 Jane Brockington is stepping aside from the VCGLR on the 24th March 2014 just in time to give evidence on the 28 th March 2014 .

 Clearly there is no integrity to this skank who protects corruption and fraud.

Commonwealth Director of Prosecution considering how to protect Fraud and corruption in Government Departments

From: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: REASONABLE PEOPLE S474.17 [DLM=Sensitive:Legal]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 05:38:41 +0000

Sensitive: Legal

Dear Ms Brown,

I am not permitted to give you any legal advice about the meaning of “reasonable persons”.

I advise that I will be seeking an adjournment at the call over tomorrow until Friday 7.3.14, to carefully consider whether these charges ought to proceed further.

Many thanks,

Stephen Grodzicki

A/ Principal Legal Officer | Prosecutions (3)

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Sydney Office

T: 02 9321 1111 | F: 9321 1351 | E: Stephen.Grodzicki@cdpp.gov.aup

CDPP considering defeat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Clearly it is a very sad evening  for me when I receive an Email from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution that they are considering defeat!!!!!
Considering the AFSA and the shonks at the Australian Federal Police tried their very best to fuck me over there is only one thing left for them all to do.............................
Come kiss my fucking ARSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: stephen.grodzicki@cdpp.gov.au
Subject: Considering defeat?
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:04:52 +1100

Hi Stephen,

               please don't  drop the charges against me because it will clearly spoil all the fun I am going to have cross examining all the shonky staff at the the Australian Financial Security Commission  and exposing systemic  corrupt conduct at the Commonwealth Ombudsman , the Australian Public Service Commission and the Australian Federal  Police.

As you are aware this matter  was an abuse of power and malicious prosecution you  will also be aware that  these Government Agencies will  still face the difficulties of being exposed on the internet should you  consider defeat   is your preferred option.

Thank you

Fiona Brown

Search Warrants/ shonky Magistrates and shonky documents!!!

+Top of Form

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 255

Issue of search warrants (1) If, on the application of a police officer, a magistrate is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe—
(a) that an offence to which this Act applies has been, or is intended to be, committed; and
(b) that there is in any premises an object relevant to the investigation of that offence;
the magistrate may issue a search warrant in respect of those premises.
(2) An application for the issue of a search warrant may be made either personally or by telephone.
(3) The grounds of an application for a search warrant shall be verified by affidavit.
(4) An application for the issue of a search warrant shall not be made by telephone unless in the opinion of the applicant a search warrant is urgently required and there is insufficient time to make the application personally.
(5) If an application for the issue of a search warrant is made by telephone—
(a) the applicant shall inform the magistrate of his or her name and of his or her rank and number in the police force, and the magistrate, on receiving that information, is entitled to assume, without further inquiry, that the applicant is a police officer; and
(b) the applicant shall inform the magistrate of the grounds on which he or she seeks the issue of the search warrant; and
(c) if it appears to the magistrate from the information given by the applicant that there are proper grounds for the issue of a search warrant—he or she shall inform the applicant of the facts on which he or she relies as grounds for the issue of the warrant, and shall not proceed to issue the warrant unless the applicant undertakes to make an affidavit verifying those facts; and
(d) if the applicant gives the undertaking—the magistrate may then make out, and sign, a search warrant, noting on the warrant the facts on which he or she relies as grounds for the issue of the warrant; and
(e) the search warrant shall be deemed to have been issued, and shall come into force, when signed by the magistrate; and
(f) the magistrate shall inform the applicant of the terms of the warrant; and
(g) the applicant shall, as soon as practicable after the issue of the warrant, forward to the magistrate an affidavit verifying the facts referred to in paragraph (c).
(6) A magistrate by whom a search warrant is issued shall file the warrant, or a copy of the warrant, and the affidavit verifying the grounds on which the application for the warrant was made, in the Magistrates Court.

Corby seeking what documents  what documents where put before magistrate  who signed search warrant.

Clearly as Julian Assange says that there are some shonky magistrates out there!!!!!!!!!!!!

The case has been listed for its first mention tomorrow before Justice Jayne Jagot in Sydney.

The development is yet another sensation twist in the Corby saga with armed agents from the AFP raiding Seven’s Sydney offices last Tuesday to search for documents relating to an exclusive deal for a paid interview with Schapelle Corby.

Justice Jagot, presiding over the mention of Mercedes’ case, is also hearing the case lodged by Seven West Media against the AFP over the raidson Seven and on the offices of New Idea magazine last week.

ALSOSeven is seeking details of the material the AFP presented to the magistrate who signed the search warrants. The media company has asked the court to review and set aside the warrants.

FOI AFSA/ Dave Maher/ protecting fraud and corruption
 Well it only gets funnier when I have  all the shonky senior management in court so they can expose themselves.

FOI Coordinator
Australian Financial Security Authority
GPO Box 821
CANBERRA ACT 2601

27^th February2014

Dear Mr Maher

I refer to your letter dated 19^th February 2014

I requested a copy of your certificates of compliance and the number of AFP referrals made in the  financial year 2012-2013

 You made a decision to refuse me the certificates of compliance  because disclosure could reasonably  be expected to have an adverse  affect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of the Agency.

I make a special note that the Commonwealth Ombudsman provided me freely  the same information   and the certificates of compliance for the  past  3 Financial years.

This indicates to me that  there is no transparency at AFSA and you are attempting to protect Fraud and systemic corrupt conduct.

I also remind you Mr Maher that you have obligations under the the FOI Act and one of them   is not the discretion to  protect systemic corrupt conduct

and  fraud at AFSA

 

I find it particularly amusing you find that releasing this information to me would not be in the PUBLIC INTEREST

Please explain to me why you fail  to be in uniform with transparency of other Government Agencies.

I also refer to the 11 search warrants and referrals made by ITSA or AFSA to the AFP.

Please also  advise me how many of these were made by a corrupt Adam Toma or a shonky Veronique Ingram to  intimidate any person who exposed fraud and systemic corrupt conduct by senior Management at your agency.

Thank you

Fiona Brown

FOI Commonwealth Ombudsman

S15 Commonwealth Ombudsman Act requires that all systemic breaches , fraud and corruption be referred by the Commonwealth Ombudsman to the relevant Minister. However this requirement is fucked and shonkey Government department are protected


From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: ombudsman.north@ombudsman.gov.au
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request 2014-1008 decision [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:37:53 +1100

Hi Sandra,
I refer to your reply dated 17th February 2014.
It appears the statistics I wish to obtain is unavailable in the Ombudsmans Annual report . Although there is statistical information available it fails to reflect what is required of the Commonwealth Ombudsman under S15 Commonwealth Ombudsman Act 1976.
Therefore could you please help me with the statistics available on investigations .
Thanking you
Fiona Brown

Abuse of Discretion

A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

Where a trial court must exercise discretion in deciding a question, it must do so in a way that is not clearly against logic and the evidence. An improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law and grounds for reversing a decision on appeal. It does not, however, necessarily amount to bad faith, intentional wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge.

For example, the traditional standard of appellate review for evidence-related questions arising during trial is the "abuse of discretion" standard. Most judicial determinations are made based on evidence introduced at legal proceedings. Evidence may consist of oral testimony, written testimony, videotapes and sound recordings, documentary evidence such as exhibits and business records, and a host of other materials, including voice exemplars, handwriting samples, and blood tests.

Before such materials may be introduced into the record at a legal proceeding, the trial court must determine that they satisfy certain criteria governing the admissibility of evidence. At a minimum, the court must find that the evidence offered is relevant to the legal proceedings. Evidence that bears on a factual or legal issue at stake in a controversy is considered relevant evidence.

The relevancy of evidence is typically measured by its probative value. Evidence is generally deemed Probative if it has a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. Evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder might be relevant at trial if spaghetti sauce was found at the murder scene. Otherwise such evidence would probably be deemed irrelevant and could be excluded from trial if opposing counsel made the proper objection.

During many civil and criminal trials, judges rule on hundreds of evidentiary objections lodged by both parties. These rulings are normally snap judgments made in the heat of battle. Courts must make these decisions quickly to keep the proceedings moving on schedule. For this reason, judges are given wide latitude in making evidentiary rulings and will not be over-turned on appeal unless the appellate court finds that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.

For example, in a Negligence case, a state appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a posed accident-scene photograph, even though the photograph depicted a model pedestrian blindly walking into the path of the driver's vehicle with the pedestrian's head pointed straight ahead as if she was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other traffic. Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In upholding the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, the appellate court observed that the photograph was only used to show the pedestrian's position relative to the vehicle at the time of impact and not to blame the pedestrian for being negligent. The appellate court also noted that the lawyer objecting to the photograph's admissibility was free to remind the jury of its limited relevance during cross-examination and closing arguments.

An appellate court would find that a trial court abused its discretion, however, if it admitted into evidence a photograph without proof that it was authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind.App. 2003). A photograph's authenticity may be established by a witness's personal observations that the photograph accurately depicts what it purports to depict at the time the photograph was taken. Ordinarily the photographer who took the picture is in the best position to provide such testimony.

Further readings

Cohen, Ruth Bryna. 2000."Superior Court Affirms Non Pros for Failure to Subpoena Own Witness; Trial Court Did not Abuse Discretion in Its Application of Civil Procedure Rule 216." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (October 9).

Hamblett, Mark. 2001. "Circuit Panel Issues Recusal Guidelines; Says Rakoff Acted Properly In Not Stepping Down." New York Law Journal (February 26).

Riccardi, Michael A. 2002."Polygraph Evidence OK to Prove Probable Cause, Circuit Judges Say; No Abuse of Discretion in Relying on 'Lie Detector' for Limited Purpose." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 29).

Cross-references

Appeal; Bad Faith; Error; Evidence; Precedent; Probative; Relevancy.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Defamation Lawyer
Experienced Defamation Specialists 28 years experience in defamation
australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au

Anyone wanting to testify against Veronique Ingram/ AFSA

If you have had difficulties with shonky Veronique Ingram Inspector General in Bankruptcy and  the systemic corrupt conduct this bitch is protecting at  the Australian Financial Security Authority or the old ITSA come and testify against  against her at the Downing Centre in Sydney...
Email me fionabrown01@hotmail.com if interested*****************

 Complaints about AFSA/ ITSA/ Veronique Ingram / Matthew Osborne/ Mark Findlay
If you have  had problems with ITSA / AFSA and would like to have the matter heard before a magistrate in a court of Law please contact me
fionabrown01@hotmail.com
and have your say in court.
This matter is to expose systemic corrupt conduct and corruption!!!!
Particularly if you   have had dealings with any of the following.....
Veronique Ingram, shonkey Inspector General in Bankruptcy
Adam Toma EX corrupt National Enforcement Manager
Matthew Osborne principal Legal Officer providing corrupt legal Advice to Trustees
Mark Findlay 
Gavin McCosker
Cheryl Cullen
Florence Choo 
Guilia Inga
Also anyone who has experience difficulty with Tibor Karolyi who originally worked for ITSA/ AFSA and now works for  de Vries Tayeh

The Heiner Affair

Posted by: Gina Baker | 5 December, 2013 - 12:23 PM

4BC Mornings: Kevin Lindeberg is an ex Trade Union official. Twenty threre years ago he was involved in calling to account  members of the former Goss Government over the illegal shredding of documents relating to child abuse.
He joins Greg Cary to discuss the case then and now. Kevin is not satified that justice has been done and calls for a parliamentary Commission of Inquiry.

The Heiner Affair is the running sore of the Queensland justice system, - It is a chronic "cover up" having the dimensions of Nixon's "Watergate."
The ALP being a party top heavy with lawyers and barristers is totally aware of how Goss and Beattie have misrepresented sect129 of the Criminal code when it suits them.
Are ALL people equal before the law, - or are some people more equal than others???
It is way past time that the Augean Stables of Heiner were cleansed.
Les T. Kelly, Launceston, Tas.

Les T. Kelly Friday 6 December, 2013 - 9:36 AM 

WHISTLEBLOWER KEVIN LINDEBERG’S 8 AUGUST 2013 COMMENTARY RE POST-CARMODY INQUIRY’S 1 JULY 2013 FINDING OF PRIMA FACIE BREACH OF SECTION 129 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE RE SHREDDING OF THE HEINER INQUIRY DOCUMENTS AND TAPES

Whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg – Former public sector trade union organiser

Q: ARE YOU SAYING THAT COMMISSIONER CARMODY’S NARROW DEFINITION OF ‘GOVERNMENT’ EVENTUALLY CAUGHT UP WITH HIM IN TERMS OF HIS FINDING OF A PRIMA FACIE CRIME BY THE LAW NOT BEING ABLE TO BE FULLY APPLIED?
KL: That’s correct. He said at the Recusal Hearing that if he defined the term “government” to mean “whole of government”, that is, departments and statutory authorities, then he would have to stand aside because it would logically mean that he’d have to investigate himself when he was the Queensland Crime Commissioner in 2001 when I saw him about the Harding Incident. He accepted that the law does not permit a party to an allegation to investigate himself.
In other words, after setting the parameters, he couldn’t apply the full scope of section 7 to the prima face shredding crime without breaching his own narrow definition of “government” to just mean “the political executive” because once the floodgates opened, it flooded everywhere and everything.
The Rofe QC Audit, to all intents and purposes, is the systemic cover-up flooding roadmap. Full commentary and interview here >>>>>

---

6  MAY  2013 - A  DAY  TO  REMEMBER

Commissioner Tim Carmody

Some days are just like any other but some may be pivotal in the lives of individuals, for particular issues or nations because of what transpires. This can be judged either instantaneously, prospectively or retrospectively.
On 6 May 2013, in Court 17 of the Brisbane Magistrates Court Building, never before heard arguments as to whether an entire Cabinet may be in serious breach of the Criminal Code were live-streamed to the world on the internet.  Specifically, they addressed the extraordinary legal question as to whether the 5 March 1990 order by the Queensland Cabinet to destroy the Heiner Inquiry documents and tapes to, inter alia, reduce the risk of legal action may have been illegal.
Despite it being nearly a quarter of a century since this shredding order, its legal consequences remain alive because no statute of limitations applies.
Presiding over the arguments was Commissioner Tim Carmody SC, head of the Child Protection Commission of Inquiry. Full commentary here >>>>>

---

2012 SPECIAL COMMENTARY BY WHISTLEBLOWER KEVIN LINDEBERG

Whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg

Over a long period this webpage has independently drawn together all material available on the public record which goes to making up what is now commonly known across Australia and around the world as “the Heiner Affair.”  The whistleblower, Kevin Lindeberg, is not responsible for its content although it contains most of what he has written about his public interest disclosures. He has never directly made a comment on this webpage.

However, due to recent dramatic events, he was approached with a series of relevant questions, and his response is now published here.>>>>> MOVING TOWARDS THE ENDGAME

---

Witness confirms pack rape of girl to Heiner Inquiry

John Oxley Youth Detention Centre. Picture: Philip Norrish

Today at the Carmody Inquiry, the Rubicon on the Heiner Affair was irretrievable crossed.
A highly credible witness under oath, Mrs Irene Parfitt, former Youth Worker at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre, confirmed the contents of her police statement that she told Mr Heiner about the pack rape of Annette Harding when she gave evidence to him in Brisbane Children's Court at North Quay.
She was, in effect, a whistleblower. She would not tolerate silence any longer over a burning issue at the Centre for many staff, and she believed the Heiner Inquiry was the place to make her public interest disclosure.  The assault was a matter which greatly disturbed her. Notwithstanding some time difficulties expected after the passage of close to 23 years, she clearly recalled telling Mr Heiner about the sexual assault of Ms Harding, a 14-year-old indigenous child while in the care of the State.
Full commentary here >>>>>

---

Should Commissioner Carmody Have Recused Himself from the QCPCI?

Alleged Prima Facie Criminal Count 57 of the Rofe Audit.

Commissioner Tim Carmody

Section 87 of the Criminal Code - Official Corruption in regard to the conduct of certain officials of the Queensland Crime Commission in respect of their handling of the allegations by one Kevin Lindeberg and related matters at certain times-
That on divers dates between the thirteenth day of December 2001 and the thirty first day of December 2001, at Brisbane in the state of Queensland, one Timothy Carmody, to the extent of his involvement, being a holder of office in the Queensland Crime Commission, pursuant to the Crime Commission Act 1997, at material times, did corruptly confer an advantage on another in respect the handling of allegations by one Kevin Lindeberg by failing to act honestly, impartially and in the public interest.
You be the judge full account of Count 57 of the Rofe Audit here >>>>>

---

Heiner Affair News Articles

Print Media News news articles and reports >>>>>

Additional Heiner Affair Coverage

17/02/2011 Kevin Lindeberg Statement of Concern suggests fraud

22/06/2010 Statement of Concern II calls on Premier Bligh for inquiry into Heiner Affair.

22/06/2010 ASA and RMAA joint media release

Queensland Parliamentry Crime and Misconduct Committee

• REVIEW INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VICTORIA’S INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION SYSTEM

• Where best practice recordkeeping ends corruption begins:THE HEINER AFFAIR Information and Records Management Annual Easter 2010

• Kevin Lindeberg writes to the Archivists Association re: The PCMC ruling

• Qld Parliamentary Crime & Misconduct Committee

• Citizens letter to PCMC Chairman Paul Hoolihan seeking clarification of the Criminal Code.

• Queensland loophole 'totally and utterly wrong': WA watchdog chair

• Who's watching corruption at anti-corruption watchdogs?

Other heiner affair commentary.

• Lindeberg Address to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy 04/03/2012

• Lindeberg Address to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy 21/02/2010

• Submission to Tasmanian Parliament 18th August 2008

• Tony Abbott MP. House of Representatives 25th June 2008 Hansard

• Senator Barnaby Joyce: media release on pack rape 12/12/2007

• Lindeberg Address to NSW Parliament Theatre 9th October 2007

• Judges' Statement of Concern August 2007

• Heiner In Tasmanian Parliament

• Heiner In Australian Senate 19th September 2007

• Institute of management consultants media release

• Whistleblowers Action Group media release

• Whistleblowers Australia Press release 17 October 2007

Downloads

MP3/Video Interviews

Radio 4BC

• Greg Cary talks to Kevin Lindeberg Podcast

Radio 4BC 01/10/2009

• Michael Smith interviews Judge Barry O'Keefe on the Heiner Affair

Radio 4BC 09/07/2010

• Michael Smith talks with Lawrence Springborg about the hush money paid to a rape victim.

Radio 2GB 30/09/2009

• Alan Jones speaks to Kevin Lindeberg about the depth of corruption in the Heiner Affair.

Radio 2GB 29/09/2009

• Alan Jones interviews Judge & ICAC Commissioner Barry O'Keefe on the Heiner Affair and the rule of law.

Radio 2GB 24/06/2009

• Alan Jones interviews Kevin Lindeberg and discusses the ongoing criminality and cover up of the affair.

Radio 2GB 23/06/2009 Video

• Alan Jones comments on Ute gate and Kevin Rudd's involvement in the Heiner Affair.

ABC Radio Richard Fidler Conversation Hour 17/03/2009

• Colin Dillon, former QPS Inspector and the famous Fitzgerald Inquiry whistleblower.

Brisbane radio 4BC 20/03/2009

• Michael Smith talks to Piers Akerman about Col Dillon's revelations

Alan Jones radio interview with Piers Akerman.

• Justice denied to Alice and Lindeberg

Alan Jones radio interview with Peter Beattie

• Peter Beattie in denial to the end

Alan Jones radio interview with former QLD union official Kevin Lindeberg

• Kevin Rudd Chief of Staff of former Premier Wayne Goss

Download PDF Documents

• The Lindeberg Petition

• The Lindeberg Grievance

• Morris/Howard Conclusions

• Morris/Howard Recommendations

• Ensby. Application against conviction

• PUBLIC RECORDS BILL 2001 (Qld) The Shredding of the Heiner Inquiry Documents and Related Matters

• Transcript ABC Radio Steve Austin interview with Michael former employee of John Oxley Youth Detention Centre

Crime in the Community

• Submissions; Grundy 1, Grundy 2, Grundy 3, Lindeberg, O'Neill, Heiner, MacAdam, Nelson,

• Report

• Motives for shredding.

• Government response June 2007

• ABC Radio Austin - MacAdam Interview

Forde Commission of Inquiry

• Forde Inquiry Report

• Submission (Not accepted outside terms of reference).

• Letters to Kate Holmes Counsel Assisting from Mr Lindeberg

• Calls for commission into Forde Inquiry

Inquiry into Harmonising Legal Systems

• Lindeberg Submission

• Lindeberg Supplementary

Tasmanian Parliament Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct

• Lindeberg Submission

• Brisbane Sitting: Lindeberg Submission NEW

Standing Committee Legal & Constitutional Affairs

• Whistleblower Protection: Lindeberg Submission August 2008

Independent Monthly

• Download Independent Monthly Articles

 

Search Warrants/ when search warrants can be issued

Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

---

CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3E

When search warrants can be issued

             (1)  An issuing officer may issue a warrant to search premises if the officer is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is, or there will be within the next 72 hours, any evidential material at the premises.

             (2)  An issuing officer may issue a warrant authorising an ordinary search or a frisk search of a person if the officer is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has in his or her possession, or will within the next 72 hours have in his or her possession, any evidential material.

             (3)  If the person applying for the warrant suspects that, in executing the warrant, it will be necessary to use firearms, the person must state that suspicion, and the grounds for that suspicion, in the information.

             (4)  If the person applying for the warrant is a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police and has, at any time previously, applied for a warrant relating to the same person or premises the person must state particulars of those applications and their outcome in the information.

             (5)  If an issuing officer issues a warrant, the officer is to state in the warrant:

                     (a)  the offence to which the warrant relates; and

                     (b)  a description of the premises to which the warrant relates or the name or description of the person to whom it relates; and

                     (c)  the kinds of evidential material that are to be searched for under the warrant; and

                     (d)  the name of the constable who, unless he or she inserts the name of another constable in the warrant, is to be responsible for executing the warrant; and

                     (e)  the time at which the warrant expires (see subsection (5A)); and

                      (f)  whether the warrant may be executed at any time or only during particular hours.

          (5A)  The time stated in the warrant under paragraph 3E(5)(e) as the time at which the warrant expires must be a time that is not later than the end of the seventh day after the day on which the warrant is issued.

Example:    If a warrant is issued at 3 pm on a Monday, the expiry time specified must not be later than midnight on Monday in the following week.

             (6)  The issuing officer is also to state, in a warrant in relation to premises:

                     (a)  that the warrant authorises the seizure of a thing (other than evidential material of the kind referred to in paragraph (5)(c)) found at the premises in the course of the search that the executing officer or a constable assisting believes on reasonable grounds to be:

                              (i)  evidential material in relation to an offence to which the warrant relates; or

                             (ii)  a thing relevant to another offence that is an indictable offence; or

                            (iii)  evidential material (within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ) or tainted property (within the meaning of that Act);

                            if the executing officer or a constable assisting believes on reasonable grounds that seizure of the thing is necessary to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction or its use in committing an offence; and

                     (b)  whether the warrant authorises an ordinary search or a frisk search of a person who is at or near the premises when the warrant is executed if the executing officer or a constable assisting suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has any evidential material or seizable items in his or her possession.

             (7)  The issuing officer is also to state, in a warrant in relation to a person:

                     (a)  that the warrant authorises the seizure of a thing (other than evidential material of the kind referred to in paragraph (5)(c)) found, in the course of the search, on or in the possession of the person or in a recently used conveyance, being a thing that the executing officer or a constable assisting believes on reasonable grounds to be:

                              (i)  evidential material in relation to an offence to which the warrant relates; or

                             (ii)  a thing relevant to another offence that is an indictable offence; or

                            (iii)  evidential material (within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ) or tainted property (within the meaning of that Act);

                            if the executing officer or a constable assisting believes on reasonable grounds that seizure of the thing is necessary to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction or its use in committing an offence; and

                     (b)  the kind of search of a person that the warrant authorises.

             (8)  Paragraph (5)(e) and subsection (5A) do not prevent the issue of successive warrants in relation to the same premises or person.

             (9)  If the application for the warrant is made under section 3R, this section (other than subsection (5A)) applies as if:

                     (a)  subsections (1) and (2) referred to 48 hours rather than 72 hours; and

                     (b)  paragraph (5)(e) required the issuing officer to state in the warrant the period for which the warrant is to remain in force, which must not be more than 48 hours.

           (10)  An issuing officer in New South Wales or the Australian Capital Territory may issue a warrant in relation to premises or a person in the Jervis Bay Territory.

           (11)  An issuing officer in a State or internal Territory may:

                     (a)  issue a warrant in relation to premises or a person in that State or Territory; or

                     (b)  issue a warrant in relation to premises or a person in an external Territory; or

                     (c)  issue a warrant in relation to premises or a person in another State or internal Territory (including the Jervis Bay Territory) if he or she is satisfied that there are special circumstances that make the issue of the warrant appropriate; or

                     (d)  issue a warrant in relation to a person wherever the person is in Australia or in an external Territory if he or she is satisfied that it is not possible to predict where the person may be.

---

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback

Division 5 -- Fault elements

5.1   Fault elements

             (1)  A fault element for a particular physical element may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence.

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not prevent a law that creates a particular offence from specifying other fault elements for a physical element of that offence.

5.2   Intention

             (1)  A person has intention with respect to conduct if he or she means to engage in that conduct.

             (2)  A person has intention with respect to a circumstance if he or she believes that it exists or will exist.

             (3)  A person has intention with respect to a result if he or she means to bring it about or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.

5.3   Knowledge

                   A person has knowledge of a circumstance or a result if he or she is aware that it exists or will exist in the ordinary course of events.

5.4   Recklessness

             (1)  A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:

                     (a)  he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and

                     (b)  having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

             (2)  A person is reckless with respect to a result if:

                     (a)  he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and

                     (b)  having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

             (3)  The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact.

             (4)  If recklessness is  a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.

5.5   Negligence

                   A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves:

                     (a)  such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances; and

                     (b)  such a high risk that the physical element exists or will exist;

that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

5.6   Offences that do not specify fault elements

             (1)  If the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists only of conduct, intention is the fault element for that physical element.

             (2)  If the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists of a circumstance or a result, recklessness is the fault element for that physical element.

Note:          Under subsection 5.4(4), recklessness can be established by proving intention, knowledge or recklessness.

474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person uses a carriage service; and

(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or

the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable

persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances,

menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years

It should be noted that it is a requirement that in all circumstances that a reasonable person would find it offensive. Clearly the Australian Federal Police find that in all cicumstances that systemic corrupt conduct should be protected

473.4 Determining whether material is offensive

The matters to be taken into account in deciding for the purposes of

this Part whether reasonable persons would regard particular

material, or a particular use of a carriage service, as being, in all

the circumstances, offensive, include:

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally

accepted by reasonable adults; and

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the

material; and

(c) the general character of the material (including whether it is

of a medical, legal or scientific character

Also to obtain a guilty verdict the CDPP and the AFP who have been asked by Veronique Ingram to protect systemic corrupt conduct must satisfy intent as outlined in the schedule

CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 - SCHEDULE The

Criminal Code

Section 3

Chapter 1 -- Codification

Division 1

1.1 Codification

The only offences against laws of the Commonwealth are those offences created by, or under the authority of, this Code or any other Act.

Note: Under subsection 38(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , Act means an Act passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Chapter 2 -- General principles of criminal responsibility

Part 2.1 -- Purpose and application

Division 2

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Chapter is to codify the general principles of criminal responsibility under laws of the Commonwealth. It contains all the general principles of criminal responsibility that apply to any offence, irrespective of how the offence is created.

2.2 Application

(1) This Chapter applies to all offences against this Code.

(2) Subject to section 2.3, this Chapter applies on and after 15 December 2001 to all other offences.

(3) Section 11.6 applies to all offences.

2.3 Application of provisions relating to intoxication

Subsections 4.2(6) and (7) and Division 8 apply to all offences. For the purpose of interpreting those provisions in connection with an offence, the other provisions of this Chapter may be considered, whether or not those other provisions apply to the offence concerned.

Part 2.2 -- The elements of an offence

Division 3 -- General

3.1 Elements

(1) An offence consists of physical elements and fault elements.

(2) However, the law that creates the offence may provide that there is no fault element for one or more physical elements.

(3) The law that creates the offence may provide different fault elements for different physical elements.

3.2 Establishing guilt in respect of offences

In order for a person to be found guilty of committing an offence the following must be proved:

(a) the existence of such physical elements as are, under the law creating the offence, relevant to establishing guilt;

(b) in respect of each such physical element for which a fault element is required, one of the fault elements for the physical element.

Note 1: See Part 2.6 on proof of criminal responsibility.

Note 2: See Part 2.7 on geographical jurisdiction.

Division 4 -- Physical elements

4.1 Physical elements

(1) A physical element of an offence may be:

(a) conduct; or

(b) a result of conduct; or

(c) a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

(2) In this Code:

"conduct" means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.

"engage in conduct" means:

(a) do an act; or

(b) omit to perform an act.

4.2 Voluntariness

(1) Conduct can only be a physical element if it is voluntary.

(2) Conduct is only voluntary if it is a product of the will of the person whose conduct it is.

(3) The following are examples of conduct that is not voluntary:

(a) a spasm, convulsion or other unwilled bodily movement;

(b) an act performed during sleep or unconsciousness;

(c) an act performed during impaired consciousness depriving the person of the will to act.

(4) An omission to perform an act is only voluntary if the act omitted is one which the person is capable of performing.

(5) If the conduct constituting an offence consists only of a state of affairs, the state of affairs is only voluntary if it is one over which the person is capable of exercising control.

(6) Evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining whether conduct is voluntary.

(7) Intoxication is self-induced unless it came about:

(a) involuntarily; or

(b) as a result of fraud, sudden or extraordinary emergency, accident, reasonable mistake, duress or force.

4.3 Omissions

An omission to perform an act can only be a physical element if:

(a) the law creating the offence makes it so; or

(b) the law creating the offence impliedly provides that the offence is committed by an omission to perform an act that there is a duty to perform by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or at common law.

Division 5 -- Fault elements

5.1 Fault elements

(1) A fault element for a particular physical element may be intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence.

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent a law that creates a particular offence from specifying other fault elements for a physical element of that offence.

5.2 Intention

(1) A person has intention with respect to conduct if he or she means to engage in that conduct.

(2) A person has intention with respect to a circumstance if he or she believes that it exists or will exist.

(3) A person has intention with respect to a result if he or she means to bring it about or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.

5.3 Knowledge

A person has knowledge of a circumstance or a result if he or she is aware that it exists or will exist in the ordinary course of events.

5.4 Recklessness

(1) A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:

(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and

(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(2) A person is reckless with respect to a result if:

(a) he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and

(b) having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(3) The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact.

(4) If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.

5.5 Negligence

A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves:

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances; and

(b) such a high risk that the physical element exists or will exist;

that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

5.6 Offences that do not specify fault elements

(1) If the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists only of conduct, intention is the fault element for that physical element.

(2) If the law creating the offence does not specify a fault element for a physical element that consists of a circumstance or a result, recklessness is the fault element for that physical element.

Note: Under subsection 5.4(4), recklessness can be established by proving intention, knowledge or recklessness.

Division 6 -- Cases where fault elements are not required

6.1 Strict liability

(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:

(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and

(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.

(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:

(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and

(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.

(3) The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.

6.2 Absolute liability

(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of absolute liability:

(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and

(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is unavailable.

(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that absolute liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:

(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and

(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is unavailable in relation to that physical element.

(3) The existence of absolute liability does not make any other defence unavailable.

Part 2.3 -- Circumstances in which there is no criminal responsibility

Note: This Part sets out defences that are generally available. Defences that apply to a more limited class of offences are dealt with elsewhere in this Code and in other laws.

Division 7 -- Circumstances involving lack of capacity

7.1 Children under 10

A child under 10 years old is not criminally responsible for an offence.

7.2 Children over 10 but under 14

(1) A child aged 10 years or more but under 14 years old can only be criminally responsible for an offence if the child knows that his or her conduct is wrong.

(2) The question whether a child knows that his or her conduct is wrong is one of fact. The burden of proving this is on the prosecution.

7.3 Mental impairment

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, at the time of carrying out the conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that:

(a) the person did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or

(b) the person did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is, the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong); or

(c) the person was unable to control the conduct.

(2) The question whether the person was suffering from a mental impairment is one of fact.

(3) A person is presumed not to have been suffering from such a mental impairment. The presumption is only displaced if it is proved on the balance of probabilities (by the prosecution or the defence) that the person was suffering from such a mental impairment.

(4) The prosecution can only rely on this section if the court gives leave.

(5) The tribunal of fact must return a special verdict that a person is not guilty of an offence because of mental impairment if and only if it is satisfied that the person is not criminally responsible for the offence only because of a mental impairment.

(6) A person cannot rely on a mental impairment to deny voluntariness or the existence of a fault element but may rely on this section to deny criminal responsibility.

(7) If the tribunal of fact is satisfied that a person carried out conduct as a result of a delusion caused by a mental impairment, the delusion cannot otherwise be relied on as a defence.

(8) In this Code:

"mental impairment" includes senility, intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage and severe personality disorder.

(9) The reference in subsection (8) to mental illness is a reference to an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of long or short duration and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli. However, such a condition may be evidence of a mental illness if it involves some abnormality and is prone to recur.

Division 8 -- Intoxication

8.1 Definition--self-induced intoxication

For the purposes of this Division, intoxication is self-induced unless it came about:

(a) involuntarily; or

(b) as a result of fraud, sudden or extraordinary emergency, accident, reasonable mistake, duress or force.

8.2 Intoxication (offences involving basic intent)

(1) Evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining whether a fault element of basic intent existed.

(2) A fault element of basic intent is a fault element of intention for a physical element that consists only of conduct.

Note: A fault element of intention with respect to a circumstance or with respect to a result is not a fault element of basic intent.

(3) This section does not prevent evidence of self-induced intoxication being taken into consideration in determining whether conduct was accidental.

(4) This section does not prevent evidence of self-induced intoxication being taken into consideration in determining whether a person had a mistaken belief about facts if the person had considered whether or not the facts existed.

(5) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if:

(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in circumstances surrounding that occasion; and

(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion.

8.3 Intoxication (negligence as fault element)

(1) If negligence is a fault element for a particular physical element of an offence, in determining whether that fault element existed in relation to a person who is intoxicated, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person who is not intoxicated.

(2) However, if intoxication is not self-induced, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person intoxicated to the same extent as the person concerned.

8.4 Intoxication (relevance to defences)

(1) If any part of a defence is based on actual knowledge or belief, evidence of intoxication may be considered in determining whether that knowledge or belief existed.

(2) If any part of a defence is based on reasonable belief, in determining whether that reasonable belief existed, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person who is not intoxicated.

(3) If a person's intoxication is not self-induced, in determining whether any part of a defence based on reasonable belief exists, regard must be had to the standard of a reasonable person intoxicated to the same extent as the person concerned.

(4) If, in relation to an offence:

(a) each physical element has a fault element of basic intent; and

(b) any part of a defence is based on actual knowledge or belief;

evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in determining whether that knowledge or belief existed.

(5) A fault element of basic intent is a fault element of intention for a physical element that consists only of conduct.

Note: A fault element of intention with respect to a circumstance or with respect to a result is not a fault element of basic intent.

8.5 Involuntary intoxication

A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person's conduct constituting the offence was as a result of intoxication that was not self-induced.

Division 9 -- Circumstances involving mistake or ignorance

9.1 Mistake or ignorance of fact (fault elements other than negligence)

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is a fault element other than negligence if:

(a) at the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person is under a mistaken belief about, or is ignorant of, facts; and

(b) the existence of that mistaken belief or ignorance negates any fault element applying to that physical element.

(2) In determining whether a person was under a mistaken belief about, or was ignorant of, facts, the tribunal of fact may consider whether the mistaken belief or ignorance was reasonable in the circumstances.

9.2 Mistake of fact (strict liability)

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if:

(a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and

(b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.

(2) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if:

(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in the circumstances surrounding that occasion; and

(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion.

Note: Section 6.2 prevents this section applying in situations of absolute liability.

9.3 Mistake or ignorance of statute law

(1) A person can be criminally responsible for an offence even if, at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, he or she is mistaken about, or ignorant of, the existence or content of an Act that directly or indirectly creates the offence or directly or indirectly affects the scope or operation of the offence.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply, and the person is not criminally responsible for the offence in those circumstances, if the Act is expressly to the contrary effect.

9.4 Mistake or ignorance of subordinate legislation

(1) A person can be criminally responsible for an offence even if, at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, he or she is mistaken about, or ignorant of, the existence or content of the subordinate legislation that directly or indirectly creates the offence or directly or indirectly affects the scope or operation of the offence.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply, and the person is not criminally responsible for the offence in those circumstances, if:

(a) the subordinate legislation is expressly to the contrary effect; or

(c) at the time of the conduct, the subordinate legislation:

(i) has not been made available to the public (by means of the Register under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 or otherwise); and

(ii) has not otherwise been made available to persons likely to be affected by it in such a way that the person would have become aware of its contents by exercising due diligence.

(3) In this section:

"available" includes available by sale.

"subordinate legislation" means an instrument of a legislative character made directly or indirectly under an Act, or in force directly or indirectly under an Act.

9.5 Claim of right

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element relating to property if:

(a) at the time of the conduct constituting the offence, the person is under a mistaken belief about a proprietary or possessory right; and

(b) the existence of that right would negate a fault element for any physical element of the offence.

(2) A person is not criminally responsible for any other offence arising necessarily out of the exercise of the proprietary or possessory right that he or she mistakenly believes to exist.

(3) This section does not negate criminal responsibility for an offence relating to the use of force against a person.

Division 10 -- Circumstances involving external factors

10.1 Intervening conduct or event

A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element to which absolute liability or strict liability applies if:

(a) the physical element is brought about by another person over whom the person has no control or by a non-human act or event over which the person has no control; and

(b) the person could not reasonably be expected to guard against the bringing about of that physical element.

10.2 Duress

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence under duress.

(2) A person carries out conduct under duress if and only if he or she reasonably believes that:

(a) a threat has been made that will be carried out unless an offence is committed; and

(b) there is no reasonable way that the threat can be rendered ineffective; and

(c) the conduct is a reasonable response to the threat.

(3) This section does not apply if the threat is made by or on behalf of a person with whom the person under duress is voluntarily associating for the purpose of carrying out conduct of the kind actually carried out.

10.3 Sudden or extraordinary emergency

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence in response to circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency.

(2) This section applies if and only if the person carrying out the conduct reasonably believes that:

(a) circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency exist; and

(b) committing the offence is the only reasonable way to deal with the emergency; and

(c) the conduct is a reasonable response to the emergency.

10.4 Self-defence

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if he or she carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if he or she believes the conduct is necessary:

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person; or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person; or

(c) to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises; or

(e) to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing criminal trespass;

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

(3) This section does not apply if the person uses force that involves the intentional infliction of death or really serious injury:

(a) to protect property; or

(b) to prevent criminal trespass; or

(c) to remove a person who is committing criminal trespass.

(4) This section does not apply if:

(a) the person is responding to lawful conduct; and

(b) he or she knew that the conduct was lawful.

However, conduct is not lawful merely because the person carrying it out is not criminally responsible for it.

10.5 Lawful authority

A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the conduct constituting the offence is justified or excused by or under a law.

Part 2.4 -- Extensions of criminal responsibility

Division 11

11.1 Attempt

(1) A person who attempts to commit an offence is guilty of the offence of attempting to commit that offence and is punishable as if the offence attempted had been committed.

(2) For the person to be guilty, the person's conduct must be more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The question whether conduct is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence is one of fact.

(3) For the offence of attempting to commit an offence, intention and knowledge are fault elements in relation to each physical element of the offence attempted.

Note: Under section 3.2, only one of the fault elements of intention or knowledge would need to be established in respect of each physical element of the offence attempted.

(3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6A).

(4) A person may be found guilty even if:

(a) committing the offence attempted is impossible; or

(b) the person actually committed the offence attempted.

(5) A person who is found guilty of attempting to commit an offence cannot be subsequently charged with the completed offence.

(6) Any defences, procedures, limitations or qualifying provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of attempting to commit that offence.

(6A) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of attempting to commit that offence.

(7) It is not an offence to attempt to commit an offence against section 11.2 (complicity and common purpose), section 11.2A (joint commission), section 11.3 (commission by proxy), section 11.5 (conspiracy to commit an offence) or section 135.4 (conspiracy to defraud).

11.2 Complicity and common purpose

(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.

(2) For the person to be guilty:

(a) the person's conduct must have in fact aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence by the other person; and

(b) the offence must have been committed by the other person.

(3) For the person to be guilty, the person must have intended that:

(a) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any offence (including its fault elements) of the type the other person committed; or

(b) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence and have been reckless about the commission of the offence (including its fault elements) that the other person in fact committed.

(3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6).

(4) A person cannot be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence if, before the offence was committed, the person:

(a) terminated his or her involvement; and

(b) took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence.

(5) A person may be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence even if the other person has not been prosecuted or has not been found guilty.

(6) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1).

(7) If the trier of fact is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person either:

(a) is guilty of a particular offence otherwise than because of the operation of subsection (1); or

(b) is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1);

but is not able to determine which, the trier of fact may nonetheless find the person guilty of that offence.

11.2A Joint commission

Joint commission

(1) If:

(a) a person and at least one other party enter into an agreement to commit an offence; and

(b) either:

(i) an offence is committed in accordance with the agreement (within the meaning of subsection (2)); or

(ii) an offence is committed in the course of carrying out the agreement (within the meaning of subsection (3));

the person is taken to have committed the joint offence referred to in whichever of subsection (2) or (3) applies and is punishable accordingly.

Offence committed in accordance with the agreement

(2) An offence is committed in accordance with the agreement if:

(a) the conduct of one or more parties in accordance with the agreement makes up the physical elements consisting of conduct of an offence (the joint offence ) of the same type as the offence agreed to; and

(b) to the extent that a physical element of the joint offence consists of a result of conduct--that result arises from the conduct engaged in; and

(c) to the extent that a physical element of the joint offence consists of a circumstance--the conduct engaged in, or a result of the conduct engaged in, occurs in that circumstance.

Offence committed in the course of carrying out the agreement

(3) An offence is committed in the course of carrying out the agreement if the person is reckless about the commission of an offence (the joint offence ) that another party in fact commits in the course of carrying out the agreement.

Intention to commit an offence

(4) For a person to be guilty of an offence because of the operation of this section, the person and at least one other party to the agreement must have intended that an offence would be committed under the agreement.

Agreement may be non-verbal etc.

(5) The agreement:

(a) may consist of a non-verbal understanding; and

(b) may be entered into before, or at the same time as, the conduct constituting any of the physical elements of the joint offence was engaged in.

Termination of involvement etc.

(6) A person cannot be found guilty of an offence because of the operation of this section if, before the conduct constituting any of the physical elements of the joint offence concerned was engaged in, the person:

(a) terminated his or her involvement; and

(b) took all reasonable steps to prevent that conduct from being engaged in.

Person may be found guilty even if another party not prosecuted etc.

(7) A person may be found guilty of an offence because of the operation of this section even if:

(a) another party to the agreement has not been prosecuted or has not been found guilty; or

(b) the person was not present when any of the conduct constituting the physical elements of the joint offence was engaged in.

Special liability provisions apply

(8) Any special liability provisions that apply to the joint offence apply also for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty of that offence because of the operation of this section.

11.3 Commission by proxy