67Responsibility for acts or omissions of representatives

### 67 Responsibility for acts or omissions of representatives > > (1)  If it is relevant in any proceedings to prove a person's state of mind about a particular act, it is enough to establish that – > > > > > > (a) the act was done by a representative of the person within the scope of the representative's actual or apparent authority; and > > > > > > > (b) the representative had the state of mind. > > > (2)  An act done for a person by a representative of the person within the scope of the representative's actual or apparent authority is taken have been done also by the person unless the person establishes that the person could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have prevented the act. > > > (3)  If an individual who is convicted of an offence against this Act would not have been so convicted had this section not been enacted, he or she is not liable to be punished by imprisonment for the offence. > > > (4)  In this section – > > > > > ***act*** includes – > > > > > > > > (a) an omission; and > > > > > > > > > (b) a course of conduct; > > > > > ***proceedings*** means proceedings for an offence against this Act; > > > > > ***representative*** means – > > > > > > > > (a) for a body corporate, an officer, employee or agent of the body corporate; and > > > > > > > > > (b) for an individual, an employee or agent of the individual; > > > > > ***state of mind***, of a person, includes – > > > > > > > > (a) the person's knowledge, intention, opinion, belief or purpose; and > > > > > > > > > (b) the person's reasons for the intention, opinion, belief or purpose.