Changes to the Defence Force Discipline Act (DFDA) due to come into effect on December 15 should simplify proof or defence of charges brought under the Act.

Parliament passed the Defence Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 in the Spring session before the Federal elections.

In the Second Reading speech, the (then) Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Bruce Scott, said the Bill applied the Criminal Code Act 1995 to all offence-creating and related provisions in Acts administered in Defence.

"The Bill is to make all necessary amendments to ensure compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code," he said. "It advances the Government's overall program to harmonise offence creating and related provisions in Commonwealth legislation with the Criminal Code,"

Amendments had been proposed for 10 Defence statutes including the DFDA.

Defence General Counsel Ian Clarke, who oversaw the harmonisation project, said the Bill had changed the way offences are written.

"The Criminal Code requires us to break down the offence into various elements," he said.

"The offence of 'absence from duty', for example, used to say that a person who fails to attend for duty or ceases to perform duty earlier than permitted is guilty of an offence with 12 months imprisonment as the maximum punishment.

"Now the offence is clearly split into two parts dealing with the failure to attend for duty and ceasing performance of duty early."

Mr Clarke said some offences were described as 'strict liability'.

"For example most offences require you intend to engage in conduct," he said. "So, in the case of 'absence from duty' - not fronting up for duty -- you'd normally have to show intention not to attend.

"If you make an offence 'strict liability', it means the prosecution only has to show the person didn't show up for duty as a matter of fact, and not also that the person intended not to show up.

"Under the Criminal Code, the DFDA section will now say: 'This is a strict liability offence' so the defence will know the prosecution does not have to prove intent.

"However, there's also a statutory defence for the defence to show that they had a reasonable excuse for failing to turn up.

"So, from a prosecution and defence point of view what each has to prove is set out more clearly and is more easily identifiable."

Clarity was important, Mr Clarke added, because the DFDA was administered, in the main, by non-lawyers.

Training has begun and will continue next year for legal officers, military police, and military personnel working with the DFDA.

Further information is available under 'What's New/Criminal Code Updates' at:

http://www.defence.gov.au/legal

By Tony Underwood