Q7. Recklessness
1. The terms “recklessness” and “reckless indifference” when applied to the fault element of an offence have a few differences. These differences can be showed by the juxtaposition of two cases of, R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464 and DPP v Banditt [2005] HCA 80. With regards to reckless indifference amounting to an element of an offence, the HCA in our first case stated that reckless indifference does not contribute to being an element of murder. Rather what is the element in this case was that the offender’s knowledge of the consequences of their actions. In the second case , the High Court also rejected the notion and idea that reckless indifference went hand in hand with recklessness and that a distinction should be made to encompass what the judges described as a ‘discrete mental state’.
2. In the Crimes Act 1900 there is the provision that if recklessness is an element of an offence, then this element may be…show more content… Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 19B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 61
Severity of offence In this instance, the act of murdering a police officer attracts a mandatory life sentence. On the other hand, this provision accounts for a range of different offences, ranging from murder to drug trafficking. The motive behind this provision seems to be to remove the defendant from general society because their crime is extreme to the point where the state cannot guarantee their protection if they are continued to roam free.
Guidance and/or discretion afforded to judges The guidance/discretionary note given unto the judges in this provision is that if a person is sentenced to life under this provision it trumps and takes precedence over any other Act or law that authorises a court to impose a lesser sentence . Under this provision judges are afforded the right to impose this penalty if all the elements are met. And it is explicitly stated that nothing in subsection 1 affects section 21 subsection 1 , which relates to lesser