Federal Court. For the purpose of the term "violent crimes" in Direction 110, is there "no inherent or invariable mental state required on the part of a perpetrator before conduct will be regarded as violent", meaning that the term "refers to the application (or threatened application) of physical force contrary to law"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Should the term “violent crimes” in Direction 110 be used to describe the particular circumstances of an individual’s criminal offending, instead of designating an inherent quality of certain offences?
Question 2: Can it be said that "the question to be addressed is the meaning of the phrase “violent crime” as it is used in Direction No. 110, and not some broader quest to identify a unifying principle in accordance with which all crimes (let alone conduct) may be designated either violent or non-violent for all purposes"?
Question 3: Does a violent crime need to involve physical injury or damage?
Question 4: Does one need only look to the “outcome” of a crime, with the presence of injury or damage being sufficient to mark the crime as violent?
Question 5: For the purpose of the term "violent crimes" in Direction 110, is there "no inherent or invariable mental state required on the part of a perpetrator before conduct will be regarded as violent", meaning that the term "refers to the application (or threatened application) of physical force contrary to law"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: