Serious assaults - class notes

Question 1

What are the two components of mens rea?

Answer 1

– An intent to commit the act, and – An intent to get a specific result.

Question 2

Define intent

Answer 2

An act or omission done deliberately.

Question 3

Discuss R v Collister

Answer 3

Circumstantial evidence from which an offender’s intent may be inferred can include: – the offender’s actions and words before, during and after the event – the surrounding circumstances – the nature of the act itself.

Question 4

Discuss R v Taisalika

Answer 4

The nature of the blow and the gash which produced point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

Question 5

Discuss Cameron v R

Answer 5

Recklessness is established if: (a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that: (i) his or her actions would bring about the prescribed result; and/or (ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and (b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.

Question 6

Discuss R v Tipple

Answer 6

Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.

Question 7

In what circumstances would you consider choosing GBH as an offence?

Answer 7

Depending on the circumstances, if there is more than one significant injury

Question 8

Discuss R v McArthur

Answer 8

‘Bodily harm’ includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but it must be more than transitory and trifling.

Question 9

Discuss DPP v Smith

Answer 9

‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation and ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’.

Question 10

Discuss R v Waters

Answer 10

A wound is a ‘breaking of the skin evidenced by the flow of blood’. It may be internal or external.

Question 11

Discuss R v Rapana and Murray

Answer 11

Disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 12

Discuss R v Tihi

Answer 12

In addition to one of the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a) - (c), it must be shown that the offender meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to the risk of suffering it.

Question 13

Discuss R v Sturm (aggravated wounding)

Answer 13

Under section 191(1)(a), it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed.

Question 14

Discuss R v Wati

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Discuss R v Sturm (stupefies)

Answer 15

To stupefy means to cause an affect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime.

Question 16

Discuss R v Crosson

Answer 16

Incapable of resistance includes powerlessness of the will as well as a mental incapacity

Question 17

List the ingredients of strangulation or suffocation and what is the penalty?

Answer 17

Crimes Act 1961 S189A Intentionally or recklessly impedes another person’s normal breathing, blood circulation, or both, by doing all any of the following: (a) blocking that other person’s nose mouth or both: (b) applying pressure on, or to, that other person’s throat, neck, or both. The penalty is seven years imprisonment.

Question 18

What is the required mens rea for strangulation or suffocation?

Answer 18

Intent or recklessness.

Question 19

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 19

Where the defendant mistakes the identity of the person injured, or where harm intended for one person is accidentally inflicted on another, he is still criminally responsible, under the doctrine of transferred malice, despite the wrong target being struck.