Cases analysis - serious injury PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases analysis...

Description

1.

Case analysis – causing serious injury intentionally

1.1 Facts of the matter

John intentionally hit Ronnie with a pool cue several times. Ronnie sustained injuries requiring hospitalisation.

1.2 Issue

The issue to be addressed is what form of assault charge John would face. Given John’s unlawful acts and his intention to seriously harm Ronnie, it is a safe assumption that John will be prosecuted for causing serious injury intentionally under s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

1.3 Legislation/common law applying to the case

According to the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 16, a person who intentionally inflicts serious harm on another is guilty of an indictable offence.

The legislation specifies different levels of offences based on three factors: intention, gravity of harm caused and circumstances of gross violence.1 To establish serious injury, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant seriously harmed the victim (actus reus), the defendant’s intention to cause serious harm (mens rea) and a lack of lawful justification.2

Serious injury signifies harm or a cumulative series of actions which results in harm that is life-threatening or significant and longstanding.3

1 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 15A-18. 2 Ibid s 16. 3 Ibid s 15, 'serious injury' (a).

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that in deciding whether harm is characterised as serious, it is necessary to compare the harm alleged to be serious with the serious injury recognised by collective human experience, as well as the victim’s particularities.4

The Court of Appeal considered that that to reach the necessary level of seriousness involved in intentionally causing serious harm requires factors including causation, gravity, vulnerability, use of weapon, duration and complicity.5 To satisfy the mental element, mens rea, it is not necessary but not sufficient to establish that defendant, by a voluntary act, caused serious injury. Even if causation is clear,6 intent to cause serious injury must be present.7

1.4 Application

The prosecution would find enough evidence to charge John with intentionally causing serious injury. The elements required to establish the offence would be found, as per the following;

Actus rea is shown by John repeatedly striking Ronnie using a pool cue, which caused him several bodily injuries requiring hospitalisation.

In terms of mens rea, it would not be difficult for the Crown to prove that John intended to seriously harm Ronnie. John’s words, “I’m going to hospitalise you,” show his clear intention to inflict serious injury. John’s actions, inflicting heavy blows with a dangerous weapon, suggest likewise.8

Moreover, there is no legal excuse for his actions as the offences were motivated by personal animus. John only inflicted violence on Ronnie because he was infuriated by his attitude towards Yoko, not to justifiably defend Yoko or himself from physical attack.

4 R v Welsh and Flynn (Unreported, Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, King and Tadgell JJ, 16 October 1987) 18. 5 Nash v The Queen [2013] VSCA 172. 6 R v Le Broc (2000) 2 VR 43. 7 R v Westaway (1991) 52 A Crim R 336. 8 Ashdown v The Queen (2011) 37 VR 341, 18.

1.5 Conclusion

On the basis of the facts given, in Victoria, it is likely that John’s unlawful behaviour grounds a charge of intentionally causing serious injury intentionally under s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)....