(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.
(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 Legislation 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.
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 commits 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.