Wounding/Injuring With Intent Flashcards
Criminal Liability for Wounding with Intent to GBH
Section 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent
- To cause grevious bodily harm
- Wounds (or) Maims (or) Disfigures (or) causes GBH
- to any person
Criminal Liability for Wounding With Intent To Injure
Section 188(2) of the Crimes Act 1961
- With Intent to injure anyone (or) With reckless disregard for the safety of others
- Wounds (or) Mains (or) Disfigures (or) Causes GBH to
- Any person
Criminal Liability for Injuring with intent to cause GBH
Injuring with intent - s189 Crimes Act 1961
- With intent
- To cause GBH to any one
- Injures
- Any person
Criminal Liability for Injuring with intent to Injure
Injuring with intent to injure - s189(2) Crimes Act 1961
- With intent
- To injure any one (or) with reckless disregard for the saftey of others
- injures
- any person
Definition for “Any one” and “Any Person”
The terms “any one” and “any person” are used in this section. They are equivalent terms.
The fact that the victim is a “person” is generally accepted by judicial notice or proved by circumstantial evidence.
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.
How can Intent be proven
While an offender’s admissions as to their intent is good evidence, it is good practice to support these with circumstantial evidence from which their intent can also be inferred.
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.
Ways to prove intent in serious assault cases:
- prior threats
- evidence of premeditation
- the use of a 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 (eg the head)
- the degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim (eg unconscious).
R v Taisalika
“The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.”
Grevious Bodily Harm
Grievous bodily harm can be defined simply as “harm that is really serious”.
DPP v Smith
“Bodily Harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more and no less than really serious.
Wound
A wound involves the breaking of the skin and the flowing of blood, eaither externally or internally.
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 a 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.”
Maiming
mutilating, crippling or disabling a part of the body so as to deprive the victim of the use of a limb or of one of the senses.
Disfigurement
“to deform or deface; to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person”.
R v Rapana and Murry
The word ‘disfigure’ covers “not only permanent damage but also temporary damage
The Doctrine of Transfered Malice
It is not necessary that 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, he is still criminally responsible, under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, despite the wrong target being struck.
To Injure
To injure means to cause actual bodily harm.
Actual bodily harm may be internal or external, and it need not be permanent or dangerous.
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).
Cameron v R
Recklessness is established if
the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that;
his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result and/or
that the proscribed circumstances existed;
and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
Reckless disregard for the safety of others
While it is necessary to prove that the defendant foresaw the risk of injury to others, it is not necessary that he recognised the extent of the injury that would result.
