R v Rohan (a pseudonym)

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of section 323(1)(c) of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic). The respondent, Mr Rohan, was convicted in the County Court of Victoria, along with two co-accused, of various offences including supplying a drug of dependence to a child and sexual penetration of a child under 12. The prosecution's case was that all three were involved in the commission of these offences by entering into an agreement, arrangement, or understanding to supply drugs and alcohol to two girls and engage in sexual activity with them. The central dispute revolved around whether the prosecution was required to prove that Mr Rohan knew or believed, at the time of entering into the agreement, the essential facts that made the conduct an offence, specifically the ages of the victims, even though knowledge of age was not an element of the offences themselves.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether, for a person to be considered "involved in the commission of an offence" under section 323(1)(c) by entering into an agreement to commit an offence, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew the age of the victim, where such knowledge is not an element of the underlying offence. The offences for which Mr Rohan was convicted, namely supplying a drug of dependence to a child and sexual penetration of a child under 12, did not require proof of the offender's knowledge of the victim's age. The relevant legislation only required that the child be factually under the specified age.

The High Court reasoned that section 323(1)(c) does not require proof of the accused's knowledge of the victim's age when that knowledge is not an element of the offence itself. The Court found that the provisions concerning involvement in an offence, including section 323(1)(c), are designed to extend criminal liability to those who participate in criminal conduct through agreement, arrangement, or understanding, irrespective of whether they possess specific knowledge about ancillary facts that define the offence, provided those facts are met. The trial judge's direction to the jury, which did not require proof of Mr Rohan's knowledge of the children's ages, was therefore upheld.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of Victoria that had allowed Mr Rohan's appeal against conviction. The High Court ordered that Mr Rohan's appeal against conviction be dismissed. His appeal against sentence was remitted to the Court of Appeal for rehearing.