Serious Assaults - Wounding with Intent Flashcards Preview

010 Violence Offences > Serious Assaults - Wounding with Intent > Flashcards

Flashcards in Serious Assaults - Wounding with Intent Deck (24):

What i the difference between 188(1) and 188(2)

The outcome is the same but the intention is different



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


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.