Page 1 of 1

Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 18:39
by Aussie
Section 24 of the Qld Criminal Code has always worked well. The final arbiter was the Jury. "Honest and reasonable" mistake of fact.

Looking for relevance in a dying Qld ALP Government, it's AG, never a Lawyer who practised in Criminal Law seeks to fuq what was never broken.

A Jury can decide on the issue. Was his belief in her consent 'honest and reasonable?'

Link.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 18:45
by Aussie
This wanker:

D'Ath graduated from the Queensland University of Technology with a Bachelor of Laws, followed by a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the Australian National University. After working in various clerical and hospitality positions, she was appointed an associate to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, serving between 1992 and 1994. She then became a senior industrial advocate for the Australian Workers' Union in Queensland.[1]


Never ever stood upright in a Criminal Court.

Far cough.

It ain't broke.

Sure, some victims might well feel abused by the Law, but if a bloke 'honestly and reasonably believes' consent has been given, why ought he fry?

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 09 Jul 2019, 23:23
by pinkeye
why// ??

He HONESTLY believed... blah blah blah.

Now Aussie... that is the easiest out anyone got for a crime. OH I thought they wanted it.!! BULLSHIT.

More like, he couldn't care less, he wants his end away, and he'll have it.!!

I mean Aussie.. You can say oooh poor fella... but you have NO willingness to consider the alternative view.. which is responsibility. The idea of oh.... she was assaulted and raped... doesn't really enter your consciousness, does it.? You seem to indicate you are incapable of conceiving of a man fucking a drunk woman, 'cos he COULD. Unconscious?? doesn't matter. :mad

Of course, most blokes need a BIG REMEDIAL INTERVENTION, 'cos they think their NEEDS are ALL IMPORTANT.

I have to say AUSSIE... you disappoint me with your ingrained bias. Your posts over the years have consolidated this. You think women are the enemy..


Poor Fool.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 01:23
by Texan
That's a 2 edged sword. An innocent man can be charged with a crime and have his life ruined over a woman's regret or a woman can have her life ruined over a reasonable doubt loophole. BE CAREFUL WHO YOU SLEEP WITH!

Sex can be a powerful weapon. When I was single and in the military, a female military member practically threw herself at me. I wasn't a bad looking guy, but fortunately, my spidey sense took over and I suspected something was not right. Sure enough, a couple of weeks later I found out that she was pregnant. She was looking for a baby daddy to pin her mistake on for child support. I didn't take the bait.

That was one reason I quit drinking. I'm a poor decision maker when I'm drunk and I almost slept with her. Now, I only drink at home with my wife and maybe a couple of neighbors. It's hard to make bad decisions at home and around good friends, at least big bad decisions.

The other reason I quit drinking was because I was madly in love with the future Mrs. Texan and I wanted to be more worthy of her and impress her family. Her parents were very conservative and did not drink whatsoever. My father in law was a Baptist deacon for almost 70 years before he passed earlier this year. He had his faults, but he had no lack for sobriety and wisdom.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 23:14
by pinkeye
Texan wrote:That's a 2 edged sword. An innocent man can be charged with a crime and have his life ruined over a woman's regret or a woman can have her life ruined over a reasonable doubt loophole. BE CAREFUL WHO YOU SLEEP WITH!

Sex can be a powerful weapon. When I was single and in the military, a female military member practically threw herself at me. I wasn't a bad looking guy, but fortunately, my spidey sense took over and I suspected something was not right. Sure enough, a couple of weeks later I found out that she was pregnant. She was looking for a baby daddy to pin her mistake on for child support. I didn't take the bait.

That was one reason I quit drinking. I'm a poor decision maker when I'm drunk and I almost slept with her. Now, I only drink at home with my wife and maybe a couple of neighbors. It's hard to make bad decisions at home and around good friends, at least big bad decisions.

The other reason I quit drinking was because I was madly in love with the future Mrs. Texan and I wanted to be more worthy of her and impress her family. Her parents were very conservative and did not drink whatsoever. My father in law was a Baptist deacon for almost 70 years before he passed earlier this year. He had his faults, but he had no lack for sobriety and wisdom.


This is relevant? HOW?

We are discussing a particular matter, not a free for all .

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 07:18
by DonDeeHippy
pinky I think your comments to Texan are wrong and unwarranted...
First he said when alcohol is involved by his own personal accounts judgement can be altered, that goes to reason both sexes.
SO if a drunk man thinks consent has been given for sex . The drunk woman could of given consent and a sober man would realize it was the drink speaking … Depending on the man he could take advantage or help the woman...….
Really for any person if they get drunk and loose their judgement and someone takes them at face value who is to blame ?

If a drunk person offers someone their car and a person accepts the keys and takes the car, should that person goto jail for stealing a car because the person was drunk......

I think either gender if you drink so much you dont know what you are doing or saying in public you are asking for trouble....

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 07:27
by HBS Guy
I drink at home. No DUI offences. Much better.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 10:33
by Aussie
pinkeye wrote:why// ??

He HONESTLY believed... blah blah blah.

Now Aussie... that is the easiest out anyone got for a crime. OH I thought they wanted it.!! BULLSHIT.

More like, he couldn't care less, he wants his end away, and he'll have it.!!

I mean Aussie.. You can say oooh poor fella... but you have NO willingness to consider the alternative view.. which is responsibility. The idea of oh.... she was assaulted and raped... doesn't really enter your consciousness, does it.? You seem to indicate you are incapable of conceiving of a man fucking a drunk woman, 'cos he COULD. Unconscious?? doesn't matter. :mad

Of course, most blokes need a BIG REMEDIAL INTERVENTION, 'cos they think their NEEDS are ALL IMPORTANT.

I have to say AUSSIE... you disappoint me with your ingrained bias. Your posts over the years have consolidated this. You think women are the enemy..


Poor Fool.


There is nothing to consolidate. Section 24 of the Qld Criminal Code has been there for many many decades, and I never heard of it being abused or a Jury coming to any ridiculous conclusion in its application. It's fair enough. If the bloke honestly and reasonably believes (a Jury decision ~ something the Crown has to exclude beyond reasonable doubt) that consent had been given, why ought he fry?

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 23:42
by pinkeye
DonDeeHippy wrote:pinky I think your comments to Texan are wrong and unwarranted...
First he said when alcohol is involved by his own personal accounts judgement can be altered, that goes to reason both sexes.
SO if a drunk man thinks consent has been given for sex . The drunk woman could of given consent and a sober man would realize it was the drink speaking … Depending on the man he could take advantage or help the woman...….
Really for any person if they get drunk and loose their judgement and someone takes them at face value who is to blame ?

If a drunk person offers someone their car and a person accepts the keys and takes the car, should that person goto jail for stealing a car because the person was drunk......

I think either gender if you drink so much you dont know what you are doing or saying in public you are asking for trouble....


I definitely AGREE with your last sentence.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 23:49
by pinkeye
Aussie wrote:
pinkeye wrote:why// ??

He HONESTLY believed... blah blah blah.

Now Aussie... that is the easiest out anyone got for a crime. OH I thought they wanted it.!! BULLSHIT.

More like, he couldn't care less, he wants his end away, and he'll have it.!!

I mean Aussie.. You can say oooh poor fella... but you have NO willingness to consider the alternative view.. which is responsibility. The idea of oh.... she was assaulted and raped... doesn't really enter your consciousness, does it.? You seem to indicate you are incapable of conceiving of a man fucking a drunk woman, 'cos he COULD. Unconscious?? doesn't matter. :mad

Of course, most blokes need a BIG REMEDIAL INTERVENTION, 'cos they think their NEEDS are ALL IMPORTANT.

I have to say AUSSIE... you disappoint me with your ingrained bias. Your posts over the years have consolidated this. You think women are the enemy..


Poor Fool.


There is nothing to consolidate. Section 24 of the Qld Criminal Code has been there for many many decades, and I never heard of it being abused or a Jury coming to any ridiculous conclusion in its application. It's fair enough. If the bloke honestly and reasonably believes (a Jury decision ~ something the Crown has to exclude beyond reasonable doubt) that consent had been given, why ought he fry?




And if the Bloke is DRUNK..? which I would suggest is a reasonable possibility in these circumstances.? What then? She isn't to blame, and HE isn't to blame....

Just one of those things eh?

Umm because, in the past, not only drunkeness,.. but also.. enraged beyond control because the victim said he was a bad fuck eg. .. have been used as defences against charges of MURDER, for too long a time, In Queensland.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 04:59
by pinkeye
So, I am happy to hear that QLD will finally look at this in a reasoned fashion. ( NSW has apparently already started)

I expect objectivity, and impartiality, because only Qld and NSW ALLOW this as a defence against rape or sexual assault charges.
It seems consent can be assumed by a bloke, anytime at all. THAT is the crux....
Refer Lazarus... just ONE example of this bias .

No other states allow this.
A farcical aspect of criminal defence law which should be shut down, ASAP, IMHO.!

You seriously support this..? :WTF :huh :jump :OMG :read :S

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 07:29
by Texan
pinkeye wrote:
Aussie wrote:
pinkeye wrote:why// ??

He HONESTLY believed... blah blah blah.

Now Aussie... that is the easiest out anyone got for a crime. OH I thought they wanted it.!! BULLSHIT.

More like, he couldn't care less, he wants his end away, and he'll have it.!!

I mean Aussie.. You can say oooh poor fella... but you have NO willingness to consider the alternative view.. which is responsibility. The idea of oh.... she was assaulted and raped... doesn't really enter your consciousness, does it.? You seem to indicate you are incapable of conceiving of a man fucking a drunk woman, 'cos he COULD. Unconscious?? doesn't matter. :mad

Of course, most blokes need a BIG REMEDIAL INTERVENTION, 'cos they think their NEEDS are ALL IMPORTANT.

I have to say AUSSIE... you disappoint me with your ingrained bias. Your posts over the years have consolidated this. You think women are the enemy..


Poor Fool.


There is nothing to consolidate. Section 24 of the Qld Criminal Code has been there for many many decades, and I never heard of it being abused or a Jury coming to any ridiculous conclusion in its application. It's fair enough. If the bloke honestly and reasonably believes (a Jury decision ~ something the Crown has to exclude beyond reasonable doubt) that consent had been given, why ought he fry?




And if the Bloke is DRUNK..? which I would suggest is a reasonable possibility in these circumstances.? What then? She isn't to blame, and HE isn't to blame....

Just one of those things eh?

Umm because, in the past, not only drunkeness,.. but also.. enraged beyond control because the victim said he was a bad fuck eg. .. have been used as defences against charges of MURDER, for too long a time, In Queensland.

Being drunk isn’t a get out of jail free card or a valid excuse for either person, unless someone held them down and forced alcohol into them. Stupid people should earn stupid prizes.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 12 Jul 2019, 11:29
by Aussie
And if the Bloke is DRUNK..? which I would suggest is a reasonable possibility in these circumstances.? What then? She isn't to blame, and HE isn't to blame....

Just one of those things eh?

Umm because, in the past, not only drunkeness,.. but also.. enraged beyond control because the victim said he was a bad fuck eg. .. have been used as defences against charges of MURDER, for too long a time, In Queensland.


It is still the job of the Jury to make a determination as to whether in all the circumstances there was an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in the existence of a "fact."

Being 'drunk' of itself is never a defence.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 13 Jul 2019, 02:44
by pinkeye
I don't think all judiciary are up to date on this.

The Justice who presided over my Supreme Court Trial is now working the I don't know.. Appeals Tribunal..?

The copper that charged me, and appeared at my trial to further his career, was later jailed for Obstruction of Justice, among other things.
NOT MY CASE. BUT it was to do with a Detective assaulting a female prisoner..
HE turned off the Video.
He got done.. thanks to the bravery of a young, FEMALE ROOKIE, who reported it. Well done.

:yahoo :yahoo

You have NO idea what Police and Courts actually do... it's only later.. after the harm.. that Justice MAY prevail. ( a general observation for the uninitiated)

Just like this issue. YOU think it's OK.. I don't. ( a specific remark on the position you hold).

It's simple. It is NOT OK.

Men may actually have to behave like reasonable responsible people.!! SHOCK HORROR.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 13 Jul 2019, 17:30
by johnsmith
was there any reason for the change? Some case that was seen as an injustice perhaps?

if not, then it should have most likely been left alone.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 14 Jul 2019, 02:46
by pinkeye
Aussie can enlighten you I'm sure.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 14 Jul 2019, 09:37
by Aussie
pinkeye wrote:Aussie can enlighten you I'm sure.


I have never seen anything which suggests Section 24 is broken.

Re: Mistake of Fact.

PostPosted: 14 Jul 2019, 12:35
by johnsmith
Aussie wrote:
pinkeye wrote:Aussie can enlighten you I'm sure.


I have never seen anything which suggests Section 24 is broken.



then they should leave it be.