What Is Contamination of Goods in Canberra Criminal Law?

In ACT criminal law, an individual cannot enter or interact with another person’s property without the express consent of the owner. Damage or tampering with another’s property includes contamination to cause economic loss. Sect 135 of the Crimes Act 1900 defines ‘contaminate’ and ‘goods.’ It says:

“contaminate”, for goods, includes—

    (a) interfere with the goods; or

    (b) make it appear that the goods have been contaminated or interfered with.



“goods “includes a substance—

    (a) whether or not for human consumption; and

    (b) whether natural or manufactured; and

    (c) whether or not incorporated or mixed with other goods.

Contaminating goods with intent to cause public alarm or economic loss, according to Sect 137 of the Crimes Act 1900, could mean 200 penalty units, imprisonment of ten years, or both. 

 Similarly, the mere threat of contaminating to cause similar effects could earn the same type of penalties. A Canberra criminal lawyer can help explain what constitutes threats of or actual contamination.

Some situations that can constitute contamination include spraying pesticide on a competitor’s organic crops and posting publicly about it. When customers see this, the competitor could lose business because the product is no longer 100 percent organic.



Another situation could be a rival posting a video on social media of someone urinating or pretending to urinate on goods in a local grocery store, in the hopes of customers bringing their business elsewhere.

Apart from providing proof of the incident, the prosecution must also establish that legal defences that the criminal lawyer could raise in court do not apply. For instance, the lawyer could claim a defence of duress. However, this argument may only succeed if the accused can convince the court that he was under intense pressure to commit the act and that there was a severe threat or injury to them or another person if they acted otherwise.

 Defence of duress may be valid if the threat is seen as continuing. Should the accused have had a reasonable way of containing the threat, it also eliminates the eligibility of this defence.

 Similarly, the defence of necessity is another defence that may be able to be raised. However, like duress, it can be challenging to argue this successfully. For this defence to apply, the accused must prove that the situation was extreme and unusual enough to warrant such a response.

An accusation of contaminating goods is severe and has heavy penalties for the defendant. It is because trust is the foundation of business, and unjustly ruining another person’s ability to render goods and services goes against the basic principles of commerce.

 For timely, deliberately different legal advice and representation, get in touch with Andrew Byrnes Law Group. We are Canberra criminal lawyers who strive for the best results for our clients. Schedule a free consultation today to learn more!