Criminal Law: Comparing Individual Culpability in Joint Ventures

This essay critically examines individual culpability in joint criminal ventures, focusing on the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT). The paper begins by defining individual culpability and its significance in determining the seriousness of an offense. It then delves into the concept of the 'onus of proof' in Australian law, highlighting its reversal in certain cases. The essay compares the two jurisdictions, analyzing how they address individual responsibility in collaborative criminal activities. The analysis includes a discussion of relevant legal provisions and case scenarios, such as R v Secretary, to illustrate the application of these laws. The conclusion asserts that, concerning individual culpability in collaborative offenses or joint ventures, the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) is better at addressing this. The essay is supported by citations from legal texts and relevant legislation.

1Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law

2CRIMINAL LAW
Introduction
Generally, individual culpability indicates the seriousness of an offence, wherein culpability
means the circumstances, intentions or motives of the offenders, for which they are liable
according to the level of seriousness1. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate whether
s323 (1) (d) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) or the s 8(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) most
affectively addresses the individual responsibility/guilt in a joint criminal venture. Hence, this
research paper incorporates reasoned arguments for the laws of both the jurisdictions based on
the joint venture of the criminal offences.
Discussion
In order to critically evaluate the two jurisdictions, primary understanding of the reversal of the
‘onus of proof’ must be done. The Australian law, which was inherited from British, stated that
until an individual is proved guilty from the point of view of law, he/she must be considered
innocent. There are certain offences that falls under the regulations passed by the government of
Australia and those individual accused with these crimes needs to prove his/her innocence, which
is known as the ‘onus of proof’ reversal. The reason is that, instead of the prosecution proving
the offence of the person accused, the innocence must be proved such as deemed for the supply
of drugs, goods in custody, proposed protesting, unexplained wealth and such other cases alike.
However, reversal of ‘onus of proof’ is valid in various cases however there are exceptions as
well2.
In keeping with the section 323(1)(d) of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the act is based on the clause
that if a person enters into an agreement or a joint venture with other people knowingly intending
1 Ashworth, Andrew, Sentencing and criminal justice, (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 148-149.
2 Nedim, U 2015, Guilty until proven innocent: Is it fair to reverse the onus of proof? NSW Courts, viewed 18
September 2017, < https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/guilty-until-proven-innocent-is-it-fair-to-reverse-the-onus-of-
proof/>

3CRIMINAL LAW
to commit an offence, will be considered as involved in the offence charged3. Whereas, as per
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), section 8(1) states that, the offender while having common
purpose of prosecution shall not be deemed for punishment under ‘the contempt of court’ as well
as under the code for the same act4. For instance, there may be intentional or reckless injuries
that may be caused by the offenders and accordingly prosecuted especially if there are any
serious injuries as per an individual’s intentions owning to maximum level of penalty. In the case
of ‘R v Secretary, threatening words was considered as continuing assault and accordingly was
deemed liable for the respective punishment under the act5.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that as far as individual culpability is concerned, no matter with
which level of intention he/she had committed an offence with the collaboration of others, each
and every member will be equally liable. Hence, the reversal of ‘onus of proof’ and the
individual culpability with respect to Criminal Code Act 1983 and Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) were
evident with the case scenarios. Thus, it can be opined that Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) best addressed
individual culpability in the case of any collaborative offences or joint ventures.
3 FALM, Crimes Act 1958 - Sect 323, Victorian Current Acts, viewed 18 September 2017, <
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s323.html>
4 FALM, Criminal Code Act - Sect 8 contempt of court, Northern Territory Consolidated Acts, viewed 18 September
2017, < http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cca115/s8.html>
5 Lanham, D, et al, Criminal Laws in Australia (Federation Press, 2006) 73.

4CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography
Ashworth, Andrew, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
Lanham, D, et al, Criminal Laws in Australia (Federation Press, 2006)
Others
FALM, Crimes Act 1958 - Sect 323, Victorian Current Acts,
<http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s323.html>.
FALM, Criminal Code Act - Sect 8 contempt of court, Northern Territory Consolidated Acts,
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cca115/s8.html>.
Nedim, U, Guilty until proven innocent: Is it fair to reverse the onus of proof? NSW Courts, (7
April, 2015) <https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/guilty-until-proven-innocent-is-it-fair-to-reverse-
the-onus-of-proof/>.