they

were acting in self-defence or under duress.

they

did not foresee that their act would probably cause the result.

the

consequence of their act was an accident.

a guilty verdict is only appealable

in some circumstances.

the public interest requires that convictions are

final.

the preservation of liberty

requires that a conviction is always appealable.

foresaw that their act was possibly

careless.

foresaw the probable result

of their act.

foresaw the possible result

of their act.

foresaw that their act was probably

careless.

is entitled to be released on

bail without unreasonable delay.

is entitled to at least three telephone calls to

communicate with a lawyer without unreasonable delay.

is always entitled to and

eligible for legal aid without unreasonable delay.

it created statutory and

common law offences to improve clarity and consistency.

it created statutory offences

that replicate all common law offences to improve clarity and consistency.

it created statutory offences that may rely on

statutory definitions.

it codified all Victorian criminal offences to improve

clarity and consistency.

the court has had regard to

the manner of the offending.

the accused has not consented

to a summary hearing.

the offence is a level 5 of

level 6 offence.

the proceedings are too complex

to be heard in the Supreme Court or County Court.

the police officer believes on reasonable

grounds that the suspect has committed a criminal offence.

the police officer rationally believes that the suspect has committed a

criminal offence.

the victim of the offending

decides to press charges.

the accused’s conduct fell grossly

short of the standard required by their duty of care.

the accused understood that

they owed a duty of care to the victim.

a reasonable person would

have foreseen that their conduct would probably kill or seriously injure the

victim.

a reasonable person would have known that their

conduct was a gross falling short of the standard required by their duty of

care.

requires that the prosecution point

to evidence that indicates the reasonable possibility of a defence.

requires that the defence point

to evidence that indicates the reasonable possibility of a defence.

requires that the prosecution point

to evidence that indicates there is no reasonable possibility of a defence.

the accused only intended to

apply force after they parked their vehicle on the victim’s foot.

the vehicle was not under the

control of the offender when he parked his vehicle on the victim’s foot.

the act of driving their

vehicle on top of the victim’s foot was not willed by the accused.