Serious Assaults - Wounding with Intent Flashcards
What i the difference between 188(1) and 188(2)
The outcome is the same but the intention is different
Person
Gender neutral and proven by judicial notice or circumstantial evidence.
Definition of Intent
In a criminal law context there are two specific types of intention in an offence. Firstly there must be an intention to commit the act and secondly, an intention to get a specific result
To be a deliberate act the action must be…..
more then involuntary or accidental
In ‘‘Intent to produce a result’what does result mean?
means aim objective or purpose
Who is responsible for proving intent
The onus is on the prosecution.
Offenders admissions are best supported with circumstantial evidence.
What are the main examples of how an offenders intent can be inferred
the offenders actions and words before, during and after the event
the surrounding circumstances
the nature of the act itself
In serious assault cases, additional circumstancial evidence that may assist in proving an offenders intent may include…
prior threats evidence of premeditation the use of any weapon whether any weapon used was opportunistic or purposely brought the number of blows the degree of force used the body parts targeted by the offender the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim
What degree of harm needs to be caused?
Wounding, maiming or disfiguration need not be grievous if the offender had the intent to cause really serious harm when the harm was caused.
When does a person cause GBH?
In this context a person causes GBH if their actions make them criminally liable for it.
But S188 does not specify the manner in which the GBH is caused and and there is no reference to the use of violence so is not necessary to prove an assault in all cases
Definition of GBH
can be defined simply as harm that is really serious.
As long as the harm is serious it does not need to involve life threatening or permanent injury
What is a psychiatric Injury and what is required to prove it?
Psychiatric injury may be included in bodily harm but does not include emotions such as fear, distress, panic or a hysterical or nervous condition.
Expert evidence will be required before an issue of psychiatric injury arises
When does the harm need to be caused?
It is not necessary for the offenders actions to result in a harmful consequence at the time of the action. All that is required for the actus reus is an act causing GBH. The link between between course and effect is a physical one and not one of time.
eg. infecting someone with HIV.
Definition of Wounds
involves the breaking of the skin and the flowing of blood, either internally or eternally
Wounds/Maims/Disfigures vs GBH
The terms wounds/maims/disfigures refer to the type of injury where grevious refers to the degree of seriousness of the injury.
Definition of Maiming
mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or one of the senses.
There needs to be some degree of permanence
Definition of Disfigurement
To deform or deface, to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person.
It does not need to be permanent
What is the doctrine of transferred malice?
The defendant is still criminally liable even if they harm someone when intending to harm someone else whether through mistaken identity or accidentally inflicting harm on the wrong person
Defnition of Injure
To injure means to cause actual bodily harm
Definition of Actual bodily harm
Actual bodily harm may be internal or external and doesn’t need to be permanent.
What parts of the body are able to be injured under the definition of actual bodily harm
All parts of the persons body including their organs, nervous system and brain. There for definition also cover psychiatric injury if there is medical evidence to support it.
What is recklessness
Consciously and deliberately taking an unjustified risk
What needs to be proven for recklessness
That the defendant consciously and deliberately took an unjustified risk
and
the risk was unreasonable to take in the circumstances as they were known to the defendant
What needs to be proved in relation to the injury inflicted from a reckless act?
There must be proof that the defendant foresaw the risk of injury to others but it is not necessary that the person recognised the extent of the injury that would result.
