Hemming, Andrew (2011) Reasserting the place of objective tests in criminal responsibility: ending the supremacy of subjective tests. University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review, 13 (1). pp. 69-112. ISSN 1441-9769
|HTML Citation||EndNote||Dublin Core||Reference Manager|
Full text not available from this archive.
This paper contends for a greater role for objective tests on public safety grounds, and building on the measure of objectivity contained in reckless murder at common law and constructive murder in all Australian States, seeks to redress the balance in favour of objective tests. The argument is made for an objective test for recklessness as the underlying fault element, based on the natural and probable consequences test adopted in Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith  AC 290, which is similar to objective ‘Caldwell’ recklessness where the defendant does not foresee the relevant risk but a reasonable person would have, following Caldwell  AC 341. The paper also advances the case for the adoption of purely objective tests for provocation and self-defence, because the current tests in Australia for both defences are confusing as they combine subjective and objective elements.
|Item Type:||Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C)|
|Additional Information:||This paper is available in AustLi, which is open access.|
|Uncontrolled Keywords:||criminal responsibility; objective and subjective tests; Caldwell recklessness|
|Fields of Research (FOR2008):||18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180110 Criminal Law and Procedure|
18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180122 Legal Theory, Jurisprudence and Legal Interpretation
16 Studies in Human Society > 1602 Criminology > 160204 Criminological Theories
|Socio-Economic Objective (SEO2008):||C Society > 94 Law, Politics and Community Services > 9404 Justice and the Law > 940403 Criminal Justice|
|Deposited On:||04 Feb 2012 10:52|
|Last Modified:||16 Jan 2013 09:54|
Archive Staff Only: edit this record