Wounding with Intent to Cause GBH

Question 1

Section and Penalty

Answer 1

Sec 188(1), Crimes Act 1961

14 years imprisonment

Question 2

Ingredients

Answer 2

• With intent to cause GBH
• To anyone
• Wounds OR maims OR disfigures OR causes GBH
• To any person

Question 3

Intent

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

R v TAISALIKA

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

DPP v SMITH

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Define Person

Answer 6

Gender Neutral. Proven by judicial notice or circumstantial evidence.

Question 7

R v WATERS

Answer 7

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 be more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal.

Question 8

Define maims

Answer 8

Will involve mutilating, crippling or disabling part of the body so victim is deprived of the use of a limb or one of the senses. Needs to be some degree of permanence.

Question 9

Disfigures

Answer 9

To disfigure means to deform or deface, to mar or alter the figure or appearance of a person.

Question 10

R v RAPANA and MURRAY

Answer 10

The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 11

Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent can be inferred include:

Answer 11

• The offenders words or actions before, during and after the event
• The surrounding circumstances
• The nature of the act itself

Question 12

Proving intent in serious assault cases can include:

Answer 12

• 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
• Body parts targeted (i.e. head)
• The degree of resistance or helplessness of the victim

Question 13

The doctrine of transferred malice

Answer 13

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 responsible under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, despite the wrong target being struck.