ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0378-4213
Current Organisation
University of Adelaide
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2010
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1538643
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2009
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1339727
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2012
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2066258
Publisher: University of California Press
Date: 2006
DOI: 10.1525/NCLR.2006.9.2.391
Abstract: Chapter 2 of the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code codifies the general principles of criminal liability. All federal criminal offenses, whether or not they appear in the substantive chapters of the Code, are subject to its provisions. Chapter 2 is based on article 2 of the American Model Penal Code and the equivalent general part of the UK Draft Criminal Code. It is, however, a more completely articulated statement of the elements of liability than either of its predecessors. This paper examines the relationship between physical and fault elements in chapter 2. It takes a Benthamite view of its provisions. Though chapter 2 was conceived as a legislative restatement of common law principles of criminal justice it can be expected to play a more significant role as a manual of instructions for the expression of legislative intentions. Chapter 2 enables the legislature to reclaim from courts the authority to define the grounds of criminal liability. There remain, however, areas of uncertainty resulting from the mismatch between the articulate clarity of most chapter 2 provisions and others that envisage the exercise of unstructured judicial discretion. Two issues in particular are discussed: liability for ulterior intentions and the effect of error or ignorance of law on criminal responsibility. The paper proposes enactment of a defense of reasonable mistake of law as a supplement to chapter 2. It concludes with an expression of hope that Australian criminal law theory might be based on a more unified consideration of legisprudence and common law.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2013
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2293761
Publisher: University of South Australia Library
Date: 23-11-2015
DOI: 10.21913/USLRUNISASLR.V1I0.1256
Abstract: This article provides a response to the article in this volume entitled ‘Is Society Still Shackled with the Chains of a 1993 England?: Consent, Sado-masochism and R v Brown’ by Jordan Moulds. It takes issue with the primary article’s claims that consensual infliction of pain and physical harm is now acceptable and may even possess some social value as recreation. It offers three reflections on the topic of criminal liability for consensual harms. The first has to do with the absence of principle in the South Australian legislative developments. The second casts doubt on the cogency of the primary article’s enquiries into the social utility or benefit of sadomasochism. The third draws attention to another peculiarity of South Australian criminal law, which arises because of the fact that the CLCA offences against the person do not include an offence of causing harm by negligence.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 04-1986
DOI: 10.1177/002204268601600203
Abstract: Official estimates of the extent of the illicit heroin trade in Australia are set out in the reports of various Royal Commissions of Inquiry appointed by Federal and State governments. The estimates are fundamentally misleading. It is suggested that more discriminating studies of the extent of the problem, and its relationship with the incidence of property crime, are required.
No related grants have been discovered for Ian Leader-Elliott.