CHAPTER II — GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

PART 6 — CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THERE IS NO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Division 3 — Circumstances involving mistake or ignorance

Mistake or ignorance of fact (fault elements other than negligence)

34.— (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is a fault element other than negligence if—

(a) at the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person is under a mistaken belief about, or is ignorant of, facts ; and
(b) the existence of that mistaken belief or ignorance negates any fault element applying to that physical element.

(2) In determining whether a person was under a mistaken belief about facts, or was ignorant of the facts, the court may consider whether the mistaken belief or ignorance was reasonable in the circumstances.
Mistake of fact (strict liability)
35.— (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence that has a physical element for which there is no fault element if—
(a) at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person considered whether or not facts existed, and is under a mistaken but reasonable belief about those facts; and
(b) had those facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.
(2) A person may be regarded as having considered whether or not facts existed if—
(a) he or she had considered, on a previous occasion, whether those facts existed in the circumstances surrounding that occasion; and
(b) he or she honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances surrounding the present occasion were the same, or substantially the same, as those surrounding the previous occasion .

CHAPTER II — GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

PART 8 — CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mistake of fact (strict liability)

55.— (1) A body corporate can only rely on section 35 (mistake of fact (strict liability)) in respect of conduct that would, apart from this section, constitute an offence on its part if—

(a) the employee, agent or officer of the body corporate who carried out the conduct was under a mistaken but reasonable belief about facts that, had they existed, would have meant that the conduct would not have constituted an offence ; and
(b) the body corporate proves that it exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct.

(2) A failure to exercise due diligence may be evidenced by the fact that the prohibited conduct was substantially attributable to —

(a) inadequate corporate management, control or supervision of the conduct of one or more of its employees, agents or officers ; or
(b) failure to provide adequate systems for conveying relevant information to relevant persons in the body corporate.