A mistake of fact may: - Prevent proof of the requisite mens rea element; or - Give rise to a defence such as self-defence, provocation, duress or sudden or extraordinary emergency; and - Give rise to a defence in strict liability offences. - Must be a mistake of fact, *not ignorance of law*. - You need to look at; what needs to change in order for it to be ok? Does law need to be changed? Or does the fact of what has occurred need to change? - Must be both honest and reasonable. - Must render the accused's act innocent. # Strict liability offences When a mistake of fact is used in a strict liability offences, it must be: - Honestly held by the accused; and - Reasonable Whilst there is a general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse to criminal responsibility, there are exceptions to that rule. Strict liability offences only require proof of the actus reus alone. If the mistake of fact defence were to be completely unavailable, then the offence would be considered one of *absolute liability*. These offences are rare but do exist. Mistake of fact therefore has the following components: - there must be a mistake and not mere ignorance; and - the mistake must be one of fact and not law; and - the mistake must be honest and reasonable; and - the mistake must render the accused's act innocent. ## Proudman v Dayman Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536. - The accused was charged with allowing an unlicenced person to drive a motor vehicle, contrary to s. 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1934 (SA). - The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of SA. - The accused appeal was based on her belief that the person who drove the car held a current licence and that she had a reasonable ground for that belief. - Her conviction was set aside. - Further appeal was made to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of SA. - Her conviction was restored. - Special leave to appeal to the High Court was sought but denied. There is a general argument set out in the special leave at High Court level, where it is agreed that the purpose of the Road Traffic Act was to manage drivers licences and people using them properly. Because of this, there was no mens rea element in the offence and her appeal was denied. # Mens rea When mens rea is an element of an offence the prosecution must prove that the accused had intent, knowledge or was reckless. If the accused has an honest but mistaken belief in particular facts, it may indicate an absence of intent and the prosecution case would fail (referred to as 'mistaken belief negating intent').