About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


36 Bond L. Rev. 1 (2024)

handle is hein.journals/bondlr36 and id is 1 raw text is: Is Knowledge Required? Analysing the High Court of Australia's Decision in R v Rohan ARIEH HERSZBERG* Abstract The High Court of Australia's decision in R v Rohan addresses critical aspects of complicity in criminal offences under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The case involved Rohan and two co- accused charged with supplying drugs and committing sexual offences against minors. The primary legal issue was whether the prosecution needed to prove that the accused knew the victims' ages to establish guilt under sections 323 and 324 ofthe Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The High Court ruled that such knowledge was unnecessary, focusing instead on the agreement to commit the acts constituting the offence. This decision broadens the scope ofcriminalliability to include those involved in joint criminal enterprises, regardless of their awareness of specific details. The ruling has significant implications for prosecutorial strategies and the interpretation ofcomplicitylaws, reinforcing the attitude thatinvolvementin a criminal agreement suffices for liability. I Introduction The High Court case of R v Rohan ('Rohan'), ' adjudicated on 14 February 2024, deals with significant legal questions surrounding complicity in criminal offences, particularly under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).2 This case involved serious charges against Rohan and two co- accused related to the supply of drugs and sexual offences against minors. The High Court's decision provides crucial insights into interpreting ss 323 and 324 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the requisite * LLB (Hons). Former Editor of the Monash University Law Review and current research assistant at Monash Law School to Professor Marilyn Pittard. The author thanks the reviewers for their helpful advice. [2024] HCA 3 ('Rohan'). It is noted that due to the sensitive case facts all names in the Rohan decision are under pseudonyms: see, eg, JudicialProceedingsReportsAct1958(Vic) s 4(lA). 2 See generally McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108, 115-18 (Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ; Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1, 11 [19] (Gleeson CJ and Callinan J).