Criminal law

    Order Description   Any joint criminal venture has the potential to lead to more serious offences. A participant should not be able to pick and choose which one of those crimes they will be responsible for on the basis of their own opinion of their possible occurrence. Victoria made a mistake in enacting s 323(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). It should have reversed the onus of proof so that any participants would have to prove that they did not foresee the more serious offence occurring as in s 8(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT). This is consistent with the values and practices of the common law in respect of criminal offences and their proof. Critically evaluate whether s 323(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) or s 8(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) best addresses individual culpability in joint criminal ventures. Structuring your research and response to the research question Satisfactorily answering the research question requires an understanding of: what the relevant law on joint criminal ventures is in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); what the relevant law on joint criminal ventures is in the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT); what the relevant common law or legislation on joint criminal ventureswas before these amendments and the changes the amendments made; what are the perceived dangers to others in joint criminal ventures and how significant they are; and whether the change advocated in the reversing the onus of proof is consistent with the common law’s ideology of liberal individualism and its balancing of the rights of the citizen and the state in the allocation of the burden of proof in criminal cases.