548:
correct legal test was whether the defendants had honestly believed the wife was consenting, not whether they reasonably believed this. Glanville
Williams & Dennis Baker Treatise of Criminal Law (Lexis 2021) pp. 265-283 argued that mistake of fact applies to normative standards such as dishonesty in property offences and what is improper conduct in bribery offences. However, on the facts the House of Lords held the conviction was nonetheless safe despite the misdirection.
227:
817:. Division 9 of Section 3 of this Schedule deals with "circumstances dealing with mistake or ignorance" including mistakes of fact where there are fault elements other than negligence (subsection 9.1) and in circumstances of strict liability (subsection 9.2). Ignorance of statute law and of subordinate legislation are not defences under subsections 9.3 and 9.4, respectively.
354:
and places eight items in a basket which is presented to the cashier for payment in the usual way. Both honestly believe that all eight items have been scanned, and the defendant pays the sum shown on the bill. A store detective, however, notices that a mistake was made by the cashier so that only
611:
In any proceedings against any person for an offence consisting of a contravention of any such statutory instrument, it shall be a defence to prove that the instrument had not been issued by His
Majesty’s Stationery Office at the date of the alleged contravention unless it is proved that at that
571:
has introduced a hybrid test of reasonable belief as to consent. The defendant must now be seen to have taken steps to ascertain clearly whether the complainant was consenting in all the circumstances. This abolishes the defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent.
547:
officer told three other officers to have sex with his wife, and that she would pretend to refuse just to be stimulating. They pleaded mistake, and the jury did not believe them. The House of Lords held that the judge had wrongly directed the jury that the mistake must be a reasonable one; the
591:
It is not a defence that the defendant held an honest and reasonable belief that what he was doing was not criminal. Where the defendant is a foreigner, and the offence is not criminal in his own country, the fact of such a belief is still not a defence. It is not a defence that the defendant
556:
that a belief that a certain set of facts are true does not need to be reasonable to operate under the defence of mistake. It merely needs to be genuine. However, the reasonableness of that belief is material in the jury deciding whether the defendant had actually held that belief.
492:
contains specific provisions dealing with ignorance and mistakes, which permits acquittal in cases of mistakes of fact but not of law. Further, it mandates that a mistake of fact need not be reasonable for the defense to be available, but allows a
621:
868:
355:
seven items were priced. This detective arrests the defendant after leaving the store. Since the defendant honestly believes that he has become the owner of goods in a sale transaction, he cannot form the
477:
612:
date reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the instrument to the notice of the public, or of persons likely to be affected by it, or of the person charged.
515:, in which it was held that even unreasonable beliefs must be left to a jury to consider. The issue in most states is the extent to which the test of belief should be subjective or objective.
986:
437:
does still define some
Federal crimes and others have been added in separate legislation for a variety of reason. For example, to override State or Territory laws, as with the
876:
482:
380:
370:
There is a complex question as to whether the defense of 'mistake' applies to crimes that do not specify a mental element – such as
257:
469:. Separate legislation has also been used when powers have been transferred from the States to the Commonwealth, such as with the
475:(Cth) that includes penalties for misconduct by company directors, and in implementing international treaties, such as with the
331:. But someone operating under a mistake of fact will not generally be liable, because, although the defendant has committed the
750:
439:
337:
of the offense, the defendant may honestly believe in a set of facts that would prevent him or her from forming the requisite
707:
497:
to consider whether a fact is unreasonable in determining whether the person did actually believe the mistake being claimed.
1049:
1013:
396:
NSWSC 1239. And it is the very availability of the defense of 'mistake' that distinguishes between offences of strict and
314:
exclude mistake of law as a defense, because allowing defendants to invoke their own ignorance of the law would breach the
754:
864:
327:
250:
604:
103:
957:
912:
722:
420:
414:
371:
1067:
243:
63:
534:
Mistake of fact may be a defense in criminal law if it is genuine, whether or not it is reasonable.
730:
568:
549:
457:
385:
108:
20:
940:
898:
872:
831:
726:
651:
506:
375:
926:
845:
813:
783:
678:
633:
444:
88:
600:
471:
118:
1072:
524:
68:
282:
of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the
8:
315:
311:
617:
466:
151:
73:
1036:
1028:
1032:
703:
400:
liability. Mistake of fact is unavailable in respect to absolute liability offences.
113:
29:
123:
78:
58:
48:
1048:
R v
Arrowsmith QB 678, 60 Cr App R 211, 2 WLR 484, 1 All ER 463, Crim LR 161,
1025:
1000:
655:
429:
295:
291:
759:[2005] HCA 37 – Malice not an element in involuntary manslaughter"
974:
645:
581:
322:
287:
207:
53:
1061:
987:"Glanville Williams & Dennis Baker Treatise of Criminal Law, 5th Edition"
539:
307:
271:
202:
187:
177:
172:
147:
384:
prevents the use of any 'reasonable mistake of fact' defense in cases of
351:
1012:
Johnson v Youden 1 KB 544 at 546, 1 All ER 300, 66 TLR, (Pt. I), 395,
462:
448:
427:
describes most
Federal crimes, many of which were transferred from the
364:
333:
298:
may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.
279:
231:
192:
161:
128:
37:
749:
392:
available to offences of strict liability such as drunk driving: see
197:
374:
offences and manslaughter by criminal negligence. In
Australia, the
226:
953:
637:
511:
452:
339:
283:
182:
973:
AC 182, 2 WLR 913, 2 All ER 347, 61 Cr App R 136, Crim LR 717,
660:
R v Gould 2 QB 65, 52 Cr App R 152, 2 WLR 643, 1 All ER 849, CA
737:
999:
R v
Williams (Gladstone), (1983) 78 Cr App R 276, Crim LR 163,
592:
believed that he would not be prosecuted for what he was doing.
19:
This article is about the criminal defense. For other uses, see
961:
98:
863:
702:. United States: South-Western Cengage Learning. p. 190.
673:
360:
344:
319:
83:
595:
494:
663:
R v
Barrett and Barrett, 72 Cr App R 212, Crim LR 641, CA
278:
may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the
1031:; R v Barronet and Allain (1852) Dears 51, (1852) 169 ER
544:
811:
is contained in the
Schedule to the 1995 Commonwealth
763:
Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, Special
Bulletin 12
622:
Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Act 1996
586:
367:) when he physically removes them from the store.
1059:
627:
560:An exception to this appears to be bigamy (see
859:
857:
855:
251:
1024:R v Esop (1836) 7 C & P 456, (1836) 173
697:
776:
852:
825:
823:
803:
801:
258:
244:
596:Offences created by statutory instruments
1039:, (1852) 22 LJMC 25, (1852) 17 Jur. 184
820:
798:
408:
1060:
1035:, (1852) 1 E & B 1, (1852) 118 ER
899:Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994
751:Judicial Commission of New South Wales
650:R v Smith (David Raymond) QB 354, 58
636:may have the effect of negativing the
440:Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994
415:Australian criminal law § Federal
941:International Criminal Court Act 2002
478:International Criminal Court Act 2002
350:For example: A defendant goes into a
518:
13:
865:Parliamentary Library of Australia
700:Business Law Today: The Essentials
552:confirmed the principle stated in
529:
388:. However, the defense of mistake
14:
1084:
575:
328:ignorantia legis neminem excusat
225:
1042:
1018:
1006:
993:
979:
967:
947:
933:
919:
905:
654:320, 2 WLR 20, 1 All ER 632,
616:(Words in brackets inserted by
587:Mistakes about the criminal law
509:case on the mistaken belief is
891:
838:
743:
716:
691:
605:Statutory Instruments Act 1946
1:
684:
624:, as read with section 1(2))
301:
698:LeRoy Miller, Roger (2011).
628:Mistakes about the civil law
403:
7:
964:. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
667:
481:(Cth) that implemented the
343:required to constitute the
10:
1089:
740:. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
579:
522:
461:(Cth) that recriminalised
412:
59:Mental disorder (Insanity)
18:
500:
290:, which is not usually a
64:Diminished responsibility
913:Euthanasia Laws Act 1997
569:Sexual Offences Act 2003
550:R v Williams (Gladstone)
458:Euthanasia Laws Act 1997
386:involuntary manslaughter
873:Parliament of Australia
869:History of criminal law
807:The Australian Federal
644:Section 2(1)(a) of the
507:Supreme Court of Canada
16:Concept in criminal law
832:Criminal Code Act 1995
679:Mistake (contract law)
614:
445:external affairs power
421:Australian federal law
956:2 S.C.R. 836 –
927:Corporations Act 2001
640:for an offence. See:
609:
485:into Australian law.
472:Corporations Act 2001
433:(Cth). However, the
310:systems in developed
757:The Queen v Lavender
632:A mistake about the
564:(1889) 23 QBD 168).
525:English criminal law
443:(Cth) that used the
409:Federal criminal law
318:represented by the
286:. This is unlike a
1003:(28 November 1983)
467:Northern Territory
378:'s 2005 ruling in
363:(which is usually
1068:Criminal defenses
814:Criminal Code Act
709:978-1-133-19135-3
519:England and Wales
268:
267:
30:Criminal defenses
1080:
1052:
1046:
1040:
1022:
1016:
1010:
1004:
997:
991:
990:
983:
977:
971:
965:
951:
945:
937:
931:
923:
917:
909:
903:
895:
889:
888:
886:
884:
879:on 21 March 2019
875:. Archived from
861:
850:
842:
836:
829:Schedule to the
827:
818:
805:
796:
795:
793:
791:
780:
774:
773:
771:
769:
747:
741:
720:
714:
713:
695:
451:of the State of
447:to override the
372:strict liability
280:physical element
260:
253:
246:
230:
229:
144:
124:False confession
49:Actual innocence
26:
25:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1047:
1043:
1023:
1019:
1011:
1007:
998:
994:
985:
984:
980:
972:
968:
952:
948:
938:
934:
924:
920:
910:
906:
896:
892:
882:
880:
862:
853:
846:Crimes Act 1914
843:
839:
828:
821:
806:
799:
789:
787:
782:
781:
777:
767:
765:
753:(August 2005).
748:
744:
721:
717:
710:
696:
692:
687:
670:
630:
618:section 1(1)(a)
598:
589:
584:
578:
532:
530:Mistake of fact
527:
521:
503:
430:Crimes Act 1914
417:
411:
406:
304:
296:law enforcement
276:mistake of fact
264:
224:
212:
140:
133:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1086:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1054:
1053:
1041:
1017:
1005:
992:
978:
966:
946:
932:
918:
904:
890:
851:
837:
819:
797:
784:"Criminal Law"
775:
742:
715:
708:
689:
688:
686:
683:
682:
681:
676:
669:
666:
665:
664:
661:
658:
648:
646:Theft Act 1968
629:
626:
597:
594:
588:
585:
582:Mistake of law
577:
576:Mistake of law
574:
531:
528:
520:
517:
502:
499:
455:, or with the
413:Main article:
410:
407:
405:
402:
303:
300:
288:mistake of law
284:mental element
266:
265:
263:
262:
255:
248:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
232:Law portal
219:
218:
214:
213:
211:
210:
205:
200:
195:
190:
185:
180:
175:
169:
166:
165:
157:
156:
155:
154:
145:
135:
134:
132:
131:
126:
121:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
76:
71:
66:
61:
56:
51:
45:
42:
41:
33:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1085:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1065:
1063:
1051:
1045:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1021:
1015:
1009:
1002:
996:
988:
982:
976:
970:
963:
959:
955:
950:
943:
942:
936:
929:
928:
922:
915:
914:
908:
901:
900:
894:
878:
874:
870:
866:
860:
858:
856:
848:
847:
841:
834:
833:
826:
824:
816:
815:
810:
809:Criminal Code
804:
802:
785:
779:
764:
760:
758:
752:
746:
739:
736:
732:
728:
724:
719:
711:
705:
701:
694:
690:
680:
677:
675:
672:
671:
662:
659:
657:
653:
649:
647:
643:
642:
641:
639:
635:
625:
623:
619:
613:
608:
606:
602:
593:
583:
573:
570:
565:
563:
558:
555:
551:
546:
542:
541:
535:
526:
516:
514:
513:
508:
498:
496:
491:
490:Criminal Code
486:
484:
480:
479:
474:
473:
468:
464:
460:
459:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
436:
432:
431:
426:
425:Criminal Code
422:
416:
401:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
377:
373:
368:
366:
362:
358:
353:
348:
346:
342:
341:
336:
335:
330:
329:
324:
321:
317:
316:public policy
313:
309:
299:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
261:
256:
254:
249:
247:
242:
241:
239:
238:
233:
228:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
215:
209:
206:
204:
201:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
170:
168:
167:
163:
159:
158:
153:
149:
146:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
130:
127:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
50:
47:
46:
44:
43:
39:
35:
34:
31:
28:
27:
22:
1044:
1020:
1008:
995:
981:
969:
949:
939:
935:
925:
921:
911:
907:
897:
893:
881:. Retrieved
877:the original
844:
840:
830:
812:
808:
788:. Retrieved
778:
766:. Retrieved
762:
756:
745:
734:
723:R v Lavender
718:
699:
693:
631:
615:
610:
601:Section 3(2)
599:
590:
566:
561:
559:
553:
540:DPP v Morgan
538:
536:
533:
510:
505:The leading
504:
489:
487:
483:Rome Statute
476:
470:
456:
438:
434:
428:
424:
418:
397:
393:
389:
381:R v Lavender
379:
369:
356:
349:
338:
332:
326:
308:criminal law
305:
275:
272:criminal law
269:
148:Criminal law
141:
119:Self-defense
93:
69:Intoxication
36:Part of the
1073:Legal error
733:67 –
449:sodomy laws
352:supermarket
114:Provocation
1062:Categories
871:(Report).
685:References
607:provides:
580:See also:
562:R v Tolson
523:See also:
463:euthanasia
435:Crimes Act
394:DPP v Bone
376:High Court
365:dishonesty
334:actus reus
302:Discussion
162:common law
129:Entrapment
79:Automatism
38:common law
958:full text
786:. H&M
634:civil law
404:Australia
152:procedure
109:Necessity
954:R v Park
883:20 March
768:20 March
729:37; 222
668:See also
652:Cr App R
638:mens rea
512:R v Park
453:Tasmania
398:absolute
357:mens rea
340:mens rea
208:Evidence
188:Property
178:Contract
173:Criminal
142:See also
54:Immunity
738:AustLII
725:(2005)
620:of the
603:of the
465:in the
292:defense
217:Portals
203:Estates
94:Mistake
89:Consent
74:Infancy
21:Mistake
962:CanLII
706:
554:Morgan
501:Canada
312:states
198:Trusts
160:Other
99:Duress
40:series
944:(Cth)
930:(Cth)
916:(Cth)
902:(Cth)
849:(Cth)
835:(Cth)
790:5 May
674:Error
361:theft
345:crime
323:maxim
320:Latin
306:Most
193:wills
164:areas
84:Alibi
960:via
885:2019
792:2015
770:2019
704:ISBN
567:The
495:jury
488:The
419:The
359:for
274:, a
183:Tort
150:and
1037:337
1033:633
1029:203
735:via
731:CLR
727:HCA
545:RAF
543:an
537:In
423:'s
270:In
104:Age
1064::
1050:CA
1026:ER
1014:DC
1001:CA
975:HL
867:.
854:^
822:^
800:^
761:.
656:CA
390:is
347:.
325::
294:;
989:.
887:.
794:.
772:.
755:"
712:.
259:e
252:t
245:v
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.