Over time, the legal system has developed in unique and interesting ways, with some countries (like Australia) valuing our justice system as essentially the only thing we have that separates us from animals (besides iPhones and cars). Defining what is and isn’t a crime has been an essential part of that, since if we are going to charge people with crimes and fight about it in courtrooms, we all need to be clear what the meaning of a ‘crime’ is. If the waters are muddy and the so-called ‘crime’ is ambiguous, what do we do? Clarify, clarify, clarify.

     Almost all serious offences combine two elements:

1. an act – deliberate and conscious; and
2. the ‘guilty mind’ – intention, knowledge, reckless behaviour. So, this doesn’t apply if you are insane/mentally impaired or it was an accident.

Example – robbing a bank
     Bank Robbing Scenario A: If you meticulously plan to rob a bank with a real pistol, and then go right ahead and carry out your plan at your local NAB, you have intended to act in a conscious and deliberate way. Therefore, we can safely say you have committed the crime of armed robbery.

     Bank Robbing Scenario B: But, let’s say you fell into a deep and dark psychosis triggered by your underlying schizophrenia, where you weren’t yourself at all. You go to pick up some fish and chips, then got a telepathic signal that there was a terrorist in the nearby bank, so you ran into a bank and pulled out your BB gun, and pointed it at the suspicious bank teller, yelling and screaming at him to get on the ground.

The outcome of your court case is going to be different, but the initial charge could be the same. Whether the second scenario is a crime is up for debate based on the intention and action, and that’s what is argued in court. That’s why it’s important to have definitions for things – the same actions without taking mental state into account could face the same penalties, but as we can see, if you are suffering a major mental malfunction, you need healthcare, not prison.

Read about defences here. 

     Intent is important. You intended to cause the result with your actions, and breached some standard (like those of a reasonable person). A statutory offence requires the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused (mens rea).

When a crime has harmed a person, it doesn’t generally matter if the harm was a mistake or that there is no apparent victim in sight.

     Strict liability and absolute liability offences don’t require intention or knowledge of wrongdoing, but the proof of voluntary action is used. So, if the act occurred, it was a crime, and it doesn’t matter what the accused’s mental state was (actus reus). Strict liability offences are allowed a defence of an honest and reasonable mistake. Absolute liability offences are not permitted a defence of honest and reasonable mistakes.

     Generally, crimes are defined by what caused them, and sometimes there are arguably multiple possible causes, which requires special attention. Significant or substantial cause – meaning, what the person did contributed to the crime enough to make it more or less their fault – is usually enough.

Time and date are usually not considered part of any offence.

Write your own story. Contact Vanessa Ash.