Serious Assault Flashcards
Wounding With Intent 188(1) liability
Wounding With Intent Section 188(1) Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent to cause GBH
- To any person
- Wounds OR maims OR disfigures OR causes GBH
- To any person
Wounding With Intent 188(2) liability
Wounding With Intent Section 188(2) Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent to injure any person OR with reckless disregard for the safety of others
- Wounds OR maims OR disfigures OR causes GBH
- To any person
Injuring With Intent 189(1) liability
Injuring With Intent Section 189(1) Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent to cause GBH
- To any person
- Injures
- Any person
Injuring With Intent 189(2) liability
Injuring With Intent Section 189(2) Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent to injure any person OR with reckless disregard for the safety of others
- Injures
- Any person
Aggravated Wounding 191(1) liability
Aggravated Wounding Section 191(1) Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent:
A) To commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence; OR
B) To avoid the detection of himself or of any other person in the commission of any imprisonable offence; OR
C) To avoid the arrest or facilitate the flight of himself or of any other person upon the commission or attempted commission of any imprisonable offence - Wounds OR mains OR disfigures OR causes GBH to any person OR stupefies OR renders unconscious any person OR by any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance
- Any person
Strangulation or suffocation S189, CA 1961, key points.
Intentionally or recklessly impedes another person’s normal breathing, blood circulation, or both (manually or by using an aid) by doing all or any of:
- Blocking that other person’s nose, mouth, or both
- Applying pressure on, or to, that other person’s throat, neck, or both.
What is intent?
An intention to commit the act and secondly, an intention to get a specific result.
Deliberate act:
‘Intent’ means that an act or omission must be done deliberately. Must be more than involuntary or accidental.
R v Collister
Intent inferred through the circumstances. E.g:
- Offenders actions and words before, during and after the event.
- The surrounding circumstances.
- The nature of the act itself.
Intent
R v Taisalika
The nature of the blow and gash point strongly to the necessary intent.
Intent
Serious assault cases, circumstantial evidence to assist with proving intent.
- Prior threats.
- Premeditation.
- The use of a weapon.
- Weapons purposely brought or opportunistic.
- Number of blows.
- Degree of force used.
- Body parts targeted.
- Helplessness or degree of resistance from victim.
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if:
A) The Defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that their actions would bring the proscribed result and the circumstances existed.
B) having regard to that risk, their actions were unreasonable.
Recklessness
R v Tipple
Recklessness requires that the offender know of or have an appreciation of the risk. “A deliberate decision to run the risk”.
Recklessness.
Bodily Harm case law
R v McArthur
Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim. More than merely transitory and trifling.
Grievous Bodily Harm caselaw.
DPP v Smith
Harm that is really serious.
Person
Person is gender neutral. Proven by judicial notice or circumstantial evidence.
Wounds caselaw
R v Waters
A breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by a flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the site of the blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal.
Maims
Mutilating, crippling or disabling a body part.
Disfigures
To deform or deface. To alter the appearance of a person.
Disfigures caselaw
R v Rapana and Murray
Disfigures covers not only permanent but also temporary damage.
Injury definition
Actual bodily harm
Doctrine of transferred malice
It is not necessary the person suffering the harm was the intended victim. Where the defendant mistakes the identity of the person injured, or where harm intended for one person is accidentally inflicted on another, they are still criminally responsible.
Aggravated Wounding section 191(1) case law for intent
R v TIHI
In addition to one of the specific intents in paragraphs A - C, it must be shown the offender intended the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.
Facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence meaning.
To ‘facilitate’ means to make possible or make easier. An imprisonable offence is an offence punishable by imprisonment.
R v Sturm caselaw (aggravated wounding)
Under section 191(1)(a) it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed.
Aggravated wounding.
R v Wati caselaw
There must be proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime, either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.
Aggravated wounding.
Stupefies caselaw
R v Sturm
To stupefy means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person. This interferes with their mental or physical ability to act.
R v Crossan (aggravated wounding)
R v Crossan
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity.
John and Bill are playing pool in the pub. An argument ensues between the two, after John accuses Bill of moving the white ball. An enraged John, smashes his beer bottle onto the table causing it to smash. John subsequently plunges the broken bottle into the neck of Bill, causing a large laceration, requiring surgery.
What is the offence and relevant case law.
Wounding with intent. Section 188(1) Crimes Act 1961.
John’s intent has been to inflict GBH, which he has done by stabbing the bottle into the neck of Bill, creating a large laceration.
Case law: R v Taisalika - intent. R v Collister - circumstantial intent. R v Waters - wound. DPP V Smith - GBH
John is shooting a target in his back yard with an air rifle. A child’s birthday party is occurring next door, immediately behind his target. John is aware of the party but thinks to himself “I’m a great shot, I won’t miss the target”. His next shot misses, going through the fence and into the face of a child next door, causing a large permanent scar.
What is the offence and relevant case law.
Wounding with intent Section 188(2) Crimes Act 1961 (recklessness)
While John hasn’t intended to inflict harm on the child, he has acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. This has caused the child to be permanently disfigured.
Case law:
R v Rapana and Murray - disfigures.
Cameron v R - recklessness.
R v Tipple - recklessness.
John hates his neighbour Bill. John intends to teach him a lesson and puts fishing line up with hooks in it, so Bill will walk into it and loses an eye. Bill sees it last minute and ducks, causing a cut to the ear, which requires a plaster.
What is the offence and relevant case law.
Injuring with intent Section 189(1) Crimes Act 1961.
John has intended to inflict GBH (loss of an eye) but has only inflicted an injury (cut to ear).
Case law:
R v Collister (intent)
DPP v Smith (GBH)
R v McArthur (injures)
John doesn’t like his neighbour Bill. John decides that he will give Bill a punch to the jaw, just to teach him a lesson. John doesn’t intend to cause any significant harm, just wants to show Bill who is boss and give him a sore jaw. John doesn’t realise, but Bill has recently had surgery for a broken jaw. John punches Bill to the jaw and due to the recent surgery, re breaks Bills jaw.
What is the offence and relevant case law.
Wounding with intent Section 188(2) Crimes Act 1961
John has only intended to injure Bill, but due to a recent surgery, he actually ends up inflicting a wound.
Case law:
R v Collister (intent)
R v Waters (wound)
R v McArthur.
Relevant case law for any aggravated wounding (section 191 (1)) charge.
R v Taisalika - intent. R v Collister - circumstantial intent. R v Waters - wound. R v Rapana and Murray - disfigures. DPP v Smith - GBH R v Wati - Agg wounding. R v Tihi - Agg wounding. R v Sturm - Stupefy. R v Crossan - Incapable of resistance
Intent v outcome
Under section 188, subsections (1) and (2) both relate to actions that result in wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or grievous bodily harm to the victim. The outcome is the same, the distinction between the two subsections is the offender’s intent.
Intent to produce a result
The second type of intent is an intent to produce a specific result. In this context result means “aim, object, or purpose”.
Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred.
- The offender’s actions and words before, during, and after the event.
- The surrounding circumstances.
- The nature of the act itself.
Psychiatric Injury
“Bodily harm” may include psychiatric injury but does not include mere emotions such as fear, distress, panic or a hysterical or nervous condition.
It may be necessary that the “injury” should amount to an identifiable clinical condition. Expert evidence will be required before an issue of psychiatric injury arises.
Not limited to immediate harm
All that is required for the actus reus is an act causing grievous bodily harm. The link between cause and effect is a physical one, not one of time. Usually of course the effect is instant; a blow causes a wound. But it is not necessarily so. The consequence may be delayed, but they are consequences nonetheless - for example HIV.
R v Donovan
‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transitory and trifling.
Recklessness
Acting “recklessly” involves consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.
It must be proved not only that the defendant was aware of the risk and proceeded regardless (a subjective test), but also that it was unreasonable for him to do so (an objective test).
Facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence
To “facilitate” means to make possible, or to make easy or easier.
Provided he has the necessary intent at the time he causes the harm, it is immaterial whether he actually commits the intended imprisonable offence or not.
Violent means
The term “violent means” includes the application of force that physically incapacitates a person, such as tying the victim’s hands and feet or inflicting debilitating injuries.
Rendered incapable of resistance
In R v Crossan the defendant, intending to rape the victim, presented a loaded revolver at her and threatened to shoot her unless she submitted to sexual intercourse.
A mere threat may not in itself be sufficient to constitute “violent means” but when they make the threat brandishing a loaded revolver in circumstances that cause the victim to submit to his will in the belief that he will carry out his threat unless she does so, it can be said that she was rendered incapable of resistance by violent means just as effectually as if she were physically incapable.
Recklessness
Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
The primary wording “use”
The primary meaning of the word “use” in relation to a firearm is to fire it, but the words “in any manner whatever” widen the definition to include a range of acts that stop short of actually shooting at an officer.
Section 198(1) Crimes Act 1961, Discharging a firearm with intent to do grievous bodily harm sets out three offences. Summarise those offences.
Discharging a firearm or doing dangerous act with intent Section 198(1) Crimes Act 1961
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, -
Discharges any firearm, airgun, or other similar weapon at any person; or
Sends or delivers to any person, or puts in any place, any explosive or injurious substance or device; or
Sets fire to any property.
