What is the primary difference between regulatory offences and true criminal offences?

The choice highlighting that regulatory offences are based on negligence accurately reflects a fundamental distinction between regulatory offences and true criminal offences. Regulatory offences often involve breaches of statutes or regulations aimed at maintaining public order, health, and safety. These offences typically do not require proof of intent or malicious intent; rather, they can be established through a standard of negligence or strict liability. This means that a defendant can be found guilty even if they did not intentionally commit the infringement, as there is an expectation to adhere to specific regulations.

In contrast, true criminal offences usually necessitate proof of mens rea, or criminal intent, demonstrating the offender's intention to commit the act in question. This distinction emphasizes the nature of the behaviour being regulated versus criminalized. Regulatory offences are generally less severe and are intended to promote public welfare rather than moral culpability, which is a focus of true criminal offences. Additionally, the standard for proving regulatory offences is generally lower than that for proving true criminal offences, aligning with the idea that negligence can suffice for regulatory breaches.