Map of Accountability

How Sections 23–25 Work Together

(Negligence → Unintended Consequences → Factual Ignorance)

Section 23 — Negligence: The Duty of Care

Core idea: You are responsible if you did not act with reasonable care.

The law expects everyone to act with “due care” in whatever they are doing — driving, handling tools, running a business, etc. If you could have known better and failed to act safely or responsibly, that is negligence. If your carelessness is extreme, thatis gross negligence. Think of this as: “You should have been careful.”

Section 24 — Unintended Consequence: The Ripple Effect

Core idea: You can still be blamed for results you did not mean — if you were careless or failed to stop them.

If something bad happens because you were negligent, that “unintended consequence” can still make your crime worse (an aggravating factor). Once you realise something bad might happen, you have a duty to try to prevent it. Doing nothing when you could have helped makes it more serious. Think of this as: “You did not mean it, but you should have prevented it.”

Section 25 — Factual Ignorance: What You Knew at the Time

Core idea: You are judged by what you knew (or reasonably should have known) when you acted.

If you genuinely did not know something important, the law considers whether that ignorance was reasonable or negligent. If you were negligently ignorant (you ignored obvious facts), you can still be punished. You cannot use intoxication or self-inflicted confusion as an excuse — the law treats you as if you were sober and aware. Think of this as: “You cannot claim you did not know — if you should have known.”