Violence - Wounding with Intent Flashcards
S188(1) Crimes Act 1961 - Wounding with Intent
What are the Ingredients?
What is the penalty?
Answer
- With intent
- To cause grievous bodily harm to anyone
- Wounds, maims, disfigures or causes grievous bodily harm
- To any person
Answer
14 years imprisonment
S188(2) Crimes Act 1961 - Wounding with Intent
What are the Ingredients?
What is the penalty?
Answer
- With intent
- To injure anyone, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others
- Wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm
- To any person.
Answer.
7 years Imprisonment
What is the difference between between subsection (1) and subsection (2) under s188 CA 1961
and
What alternative mens rea is allowed for under subsection (2)
Answer:
In s/s (1) the offender intends to cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)
In s/s (2) the offender intends only to injure the victim, although the actual outcome is a greater degree of harm than anticipated
s/s (2) also allows for an alternative mens rea element involving “reckless disregard for the safety of others”
In the context of the term “anyone” and “any person” . How is person defined?
Answer:
The assaults discussed in this module are gender neutral.
A victim is a “person” and accepted by judicial notice or proved by circumstantial evidence
The age of the victim is not relevant but note that ‘assault on a child’ and ‘male assaults female’ (s194) require proof of age and gender
Is it necessary that the person suffering the harm is the intended victim
Answer:
No
In criminal law there are two types of intent
Explain the two types of intent
Answer:
First there must be an intention to commit the act and
Secondly there must be an intention to get a specific result.
In this context result means “aim, object, purpose”
With regards to intent What is a deliberate Act?
Answer:
Intent means that act or omission must be done deliberately. The act or omission must be more than involuntary or accidental
In proving intent of the offender What does the prosecution have to prove?
Answer:
Onus to prove the offender’s intent beyond reasonable doubt.
While the offenders admissions as to their intent are potentially good evidence What in terms of good practice should support these?
Answer:
It is good practice to support admissions with circumstantial evidence from which intent can be inferred.
What was held in R v Collister? - Demands with menaces
That the two police officers, the defendants in this case, although making no express demands for money their intent could be inferred from the circumstances.
This case involved two police officers charged with demands with menaces after causing a man to believe that he would be arrested for homosexual acts
What can circumstantial evidence can an offenders intent can be inferred from?
Answer:
1) The offender’s actions and words before and after the event
2) The surrounding circumstances
3) the nature of the act itself
In serious assault cases What additional examples of circumstantial evidence proving intent are there?
Answer: - Prior threats - evidence of premeditation - the use of a weapon - whether the weapon used was opportunistic or purposely brought - the number of blows - the degree of force used - the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim - the area of the body targeted
What was held in the case law R v Taisalika?
Answer:
The court held;
“The nature of the blow and the gash that it produced on the complainants head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent”
In regards to intent, What is relevant to the degree of harm of the wounding, maiming or disfiguration?
Answer:
The wounding, maiming or disfiguration need not be grievous, if in causing that harm the defendant had the intent to cause really serious harm
Define Grievous Bodily Harm
Answer:
It can be defined simply as “harm that is really serious”
