Rob wrote:

"In relation to your first post, there was obviously no point in Mr Lavender pleading guilty at first instance in order to "get out of gaol in 3 years". At no stage did he dispute that his actions did in fact contribute to the death of a young boy, but what was disputed was the criminality of such conduct."

And here is one problem: the case had to be taken all the way to the High Court for the criminality of such conduct to be defined, whereas it should be blindingly simple:

If a person does something reckless that results in a death, why should the criminality be even doubted?

Or are you saying that if a person, thinking that there are intruders on his land, fires a number of warning shots into the air and them proceeds to blast the bushes with a shotgun, killing a child who was hiding there out of fear, having accidentally wandered onto the property, then the shooter is simply responsible for an accident?

As for the double / triple / quadruple jeopardy problem that you mentioned: The judgements do not indicate why this matter was not at first instance dealt with in the Local Court, in the same way that a 'dangerous driving occasioning death' matter is usually handled?

I can only presume, but you may be able to enlighten me, that either the crown felt that the matter was serious enough to be charges as indictable offence, or perhaps the defence thought they would have a better chance before a jury?

In Lavender one would hope that his legal team would have considered precedent, as you have put it:

“In doing so, the court adopted (as it had in the past) a completely objective test - meaning that what Mr Lavender believed at the time of the offence is completely irrelevant...”

So, the Court already had published a precedent, so where is the problem about the criminality of the matter?

The basis for the acceptance of the criminality had already been established.

It's good to see that this anachronistic law has now been reformed in Queensland. Taking legislation to be introduced in South Australia in the imminent future that makes three states in Australia so far.
Bearing in mind that the UK has also seen the light, I must concede that it does bode well for the common law countries of the West. (despite the common law judges dragging their feet all the way)
Dare I foresee the day in Australia when a presumed felon no longer has the right to walk the streets, free from fear of prosecution.

http://www.autrefoisacquit.info

October 2007