Have you been charged under the Corporate Criminal Responsibility provisions for an Offence Against Section 254?
This is a complex provision that interacts with the offence of Document Destruction under Section 254 of the Crimes Act 1958. It applies where a corporation or associate of a corporation destroys documents to be used in legal proceedings.
Before proceeding further, engage a specialist criminal defence lawyer to assist you in fully understanding this involved legislation. You may have a defence available to you that you are unaware of.
Please read below for more information in relation to this charge.
Elements of the offence
Section 255 of the Crimes Act 1958.
The prosecution must prove:
- documents to be used in legal proceedings were destroyed (as per Section 254 of the Crimes Act 1958);
- the conduct is attributable to the body corporate;
- knowledge is also attributable to the body corporate; and
- the intention of the body corporate’s board of directors, officers and other associates must also be attributed to the body corporate.
The maximum penalty
Level 6 imprisonment being a maximum of 5 years.
Where will my case be heard?
Corporate Criminal Responsibility for Offence Against Section 254 cases will usually be heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.
Questions to consider
Do you have a defence?
If you are pleading guilty, what can you do to minimise your sentence?
What to do next?
See an experienced criminal lawyer urgently. Make sure you leave plenty of time for your lawyer to prepare a thorough defence. Preparation wins cases.
If you have been charged with Corporate Criminal Responsibility for Offence Against Section 254 make an appointment to see one of our experienced lawyers today.
The legislation
Section 255 Corporate criminal responsibility for offence against section 254
(1) For the purposes of a proceeding against a body corporate for an offence against section 254—
(a) relevant conduct engaged in by an associate of the body corporate must also be attributed to the body corporate; and
(b) knowledge of an associate of the body corporate must also be attributed to the body corporate; and
(c) intention—
(i) of the body corporate’s board of directors; or
(ii) of an officer of the body corporate; or
(iii) of any other associate of the body corporate if a corporate culture existed within the body corporate that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the formation of that intention—
must also be attributed to the body corporate.
(2) If an officer of a body corporate contravenes section 254, the body corporate must be taken to have also contravened that section and may be proceeded against and found guilty of an offence against that section whether or not the officer has been proceeded against or found guilty of that offence.
(3) In a proceeding against a body corporate for an offence against section 254, brought in reliance on subsection (2), it is a defence to the charge for the body corporate to prove that it exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention of that section by the officer.
(4) The means by which authorisation or permission as required by section 254(1)(b)(ii) may be established include—
(a) proving that an officer of the body corporate gave that authorisation or permission; or
(b) proving that the body corporate’s board of directors gave that authorisation or permission; or
(c) proving that a corporate culture existed within the body corporate that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to the relevant conduct being carried out.
(5) Subsection (4)(a) does not apply if the body corporate proves that it exercised due diligence to prevent the authorisation or permission being given.
(6) Factors relevant to the application of subsection (1)(c)(iii) or (4)(c) include—
(a) whether authority to commit an offence against section 254 or an offence of a similar character had been given by an officer of the body corporate; and
(b) whether the associate of the body corporate who carried out the relevant conduct or formed the relevant intention believed on reasonable grounds, or entertained a reasonable expectation, that an officer of the body corporate would have authorised or permitted the relevant conduct being carried out with the relevant intention.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), it is not necessary that each element of an offence against section 254 that is attributed to a body corporate by force of subsection (1) be supplied by the same associate of the body corporate.
(8) It is necessary that the elements referred to in section 254(1)(b)(i) and (c) be supplied by the same associate of the body corporate.
