Home › Criminal Law › 2 · Non fatal offences

Module 2 · Non fatal offences against the person

These offences appear in six of six papers, and the examined skills are ladder selection, injury characterisation, and fallback discipline. The 2022 examiner's report is blunt: students who skipped the offences against the person when homicide was doubtful lost the paper. When murder or manslaughter is in doubt, come down the ladder rather than leaving the accused unanalysed. Every element is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and the marks sit in calibrated conclusions that name the surviving rung. This guide walks the ladder rung by rung, then both forms of common assault, then the habits that convert the doctrine into marks.

Cases at a glance

The statutory ladder

The ladder is built from two variables. The first is the result: injury or serious injury as defined in s 15. The second is the fault: intention, then recklessness, then criminal negligence. The top two rungs add a third element of circumstance. Characterise the result first because the result fixes which half of the ladder is open, then test the fault from the top down. Never run all eight rungs in full. Argue the realistic pair and dispatch the rest in a line each, and let the conclusion name the surviving rung in terms: the accused is unlikely to be liable under s 16 but is liable under s 18. The maximum penalties confirm the grading: intention outranks recklessness at each result grade, gross violence adds a presumptive minimum non-parole period rather than a higher maximum, and common assault survives at common law with five years (s 320). And the prosecution does not stake everything on one rung. Where an aggravated offence is charged, the lesser offence is commonly charged in the alternative, so a failed circumstance or fault element leaves the lower rung standing on the same presentment.

Gross violence circumstances (ss 15A and 15B)

Sections 15A and 15B add a circumstance element to the serious injury offences. The prosecution must prove the base offence and at least one listed circumstance.

Four arguments recur. First, spontaneity. The planning circumstance looks to preparation and a genuinely spur of the moment act cannot satisfy it (Sarjeant), so absent preparation the charge drops to s 16 or s 17 even though the injury is serious. Second, brevity is not spontaneity. An attack over in twenty seconds is still planned in advance where messages set the night and named the weapon, so argue from the evidence of preparation rather than from duration. Third, the planning limb carries the ladder's one objective mental state. Even where the offender at the time of planning neither intended nor foresaw serious injury, the limb is satisfied where a reasonable person would have foreseen that the conduct would be likely to result in serious injury (s 15A(2)(a)(iii)), so a denial of foresight does not close the circumstance the way it closes recklessness. Fourth, the incapacitated circumstances are wider than a knockout. The provisions speak of a victim who is incapacitated, which reaches any state in which the victim cannot defend themselves, a victim pinned or restrained as much as one lying unconscious, and unconsciousness is simply the clearest instance (ss 15A(2), 15B(2); DPP v Large). So where the blows continue after the victim goes down, or the serious injury is inflicted while the victim is helpless, the circumstance is engaged.

Injury and serious injury (s 15)

The substantial pain route

Pain alone can be the injury because physical injury includes substantial pain (s 15). A victim who cannot bear weight on a stomped foot for the rest of the day has suffered substantial pain even though the X ray is clean, because imaging answers a question the definition does not ask. The route has a floor. A cry of pain is not an injury and momentary soreness is not substantial pain. Fight the characterisation on the specific harm rather than the violence of the act.

Harm to mental health

The mental limb carries an express exclusion. Distress, grief, fear or anger is an emotional reaction rather than an injury unless it results in psychological harm (s 15). Fright and sleepless nights alone fail. A diagnosed anxiety disorder that stops the victim working passes. The decisive fact is usually the diagnosis, so where none exists flag the evidential gap rather than concluding.

When seriousness is judged

Seriousness is judged by the injury's capacity to endanger life at the time it was sustained, and the injury need not be permanent (Sarjeant; Garratt). A ruptured spleen that surgery repairs completely still endangered life when sustained, and a full recovery does not undo it. The defence argument from recovery mistakes the time of assessment. The substantial and protracted limb runs on the opposite clock. Protracted is a word about duration, so whether an injury is substantial and protracted cannot be judged until enough time has elapsed for its duration to be seen (s 15). The two limbs are therefore assessed at different moments: endangerment when the injury is sustained, protraction only once its course is known. The definition also reaches the cumulative effect of more than one injury (s 15).

Intention and how it is proved

Two consequences follow. First, denials do not control the finding. An accused who lined a glass up and swung it edge first into a face will struggle against the inference of intended serious injury whatever the police interview says (McKnoulty). Run the inference from the act rather than demanding an admission. Second, the grades do not blur. Intending some injury while happening to cause serious injury does not satisfy s 16 because the intention must match the grade charged (Westaway). The mismatch is not an acquittal. It drops the charge to s 18 where intention to cause any injury suffices, or to s 17 if foresight of probable serious injury can be proved.

Common assault

• The apprehension test is subjective as to what the victim apprehended, not whether a reasonable person would have. Apprehension can arise from a distance, may be of force from a third party (Macpherson v Beath), and need not be reasonable (Slaveski).

The force limb worked

The elements are an act applying force to the victim's body, intention or recklessness as to that application, and the absence of lawful justification or excuse (Fagan; Venna). Assault needs an act rather than a mere omission, and the act can be continuing, as where force first applied innocently is then deliberately maintained (Fagan). Hostility is not required and a good motive is no answer, so a calm professional wrist lock is still force (Boughey). The everyday boundary is ordinary social touching. A tap on the shoulder to attract attention is not an assault (Collins v Wilcock), but a sustained hard grip held against a person pulling away exceeds any social licence even where the accused was only trying to help.

The apprehension limb worked

The elements are an act causing the victim to apprehend the immediate application of force, with intention or recklessness as to that apprehension (Fagan; Slaveski). The victim's conduct often supplies the proof, because evasive action such as a sidestep or a night spent watching the driveway shows the apprehension existed. Timing is the discipline. The victim must know of the act when it happens (Pemble) and the apprehension must be of immediate force. A prank swing behind the victim's head discovered days later on video founds no assault, because after acquired knowledge cannot create an apprehension of immediate force after the event. Immediacy also has a floor at the far end: a fear that force will be applied at some distant future time is not the apprehension the offence requires, though on the right facts even a telephone threat can convey immediate violence (Knight).

Lawful justification or excuse

Run the exits rather than ticking them, because each is an argument on facts. Consent must actually cover the force applied (Neal). The ejection exit asks whether the person had become a trespasser and whether the force was measured and proportionate, and an incidental injury such as a sprained wrist does not by itself turn a reasonable ejection into an assault (Roy v O'Neill). The mirror mistake is never running the exits at all.

Recklessness

• The alternative fault limbs within s 18, intention or recklessness, are a keyring: either limb, proved on the facts, satisfies the fault element.
• The foresight must be of injury of the grade charged: probable serious injury for ss 15B and 17 and probable injury for s 18 (Campbell).
• That anyone could see someone might get hurt states what a reasonable person would foresee, and a bare possibility that never crossed the accused's mind is not foresight of probability (DPP Reference No 1 of 2019).

The downward mens rea cascade

The ladder rewards reuse. A fault finding made once answers every lower rung that asks the same question, so failed rungs are dispatched in a line each rather than re-analysed.

Two disciplines keep the cascade honest. State each disposal expressly, because a rung never mentioned earns nothing while a rung dispatched in a line earns its mark. And hold alternatives conditionally: where the intention conclusion is arguable, state it and add that if it is wrong s 17 is the alternative. The cascade also runs into this module from a failed homicide, because the same fault findings select the surviving rung here. That is why skipping these offences after a doubtful homicide loses the paper.

Negligently causing serious injury (s 24)

The duty of care is the antecedent step and it is asked first, on ordinary negligence principles: driver to other road users, supervisor to the workers on the site. Without a duty there is no s 24 however gross the carelessness. Section 24 then breaks the ladder's pattern because its fault is objective. The question is what the reasonable standard of care demanded rather than what the accused foresaw, so a statement that it never occurred to the accused that anyone was at risk is no answer. Keep the risk object precise. The great falling short is borrowed from negligent manslaughter, where the high risk is of death or really serious injury, but it travels adapted to the offence charged, so for s 24 the high risk is that serious injury would result (Nydam; DPP Reference No 1 of 2019). The trap runs in mirror image to the recklessness trap. There the error is smuggling the reasonable person into a subjective test. Here it is demanding subjective foresight under an objective one. The threshold is high and ordinary carelessness fails. The strongest s 24 facts are structural, as where a site supervisor strips a scaffold guardrail against the written safety plan and leaves it off overnight on a live site.

How the examiners mark it

The feedback states the reward function year after year: methodical and precise work that uses the facts intelligently and draws accurate conclusions about how likely each element is to be proved. Four habits carry the marks here. Triage before analysis. Open each offence with its elements and authority, then say in one sentence which elements are live. Deal with obvious elements briefly and spend the words where proof is doubtful. Dismissal discipline. Doomed rungs are killed in a line rather than omitted, and the cascade supplies the line. Likelihood language. Conclusions are graded rather than binary: the prosecution could prove the element beyond reasonable doubt, a jury might be reluctant, an argument is tenuous. Name the surviving rung rather than listing possibilities. What loses marks. Writing everything known about the ladder rather than the live issues. Assuming injury instead of arguing the s 15 definition. Testing foresight by what a reasonable person would have realised. Asserting that a punch is unlawful instead of proving the assault's elements. Skipping the fallbacks when homicide is doubtful.

Critical pitfalls and counter-arguments

Take it to the practice bank

This module is drilled in the Criminal Law practice bank. Every problem there carries a realistic Pass answer, an H1 model answer, and an examiner's comment explaining the decisive fact and where the marks are lost.

Practice prompts

1. Characterise a harm on the s 15 definition without asserting it, and say which limb of the definition you are using.
2. Take a single punch and argue the realistic pair of rungs, then name the surviving rung in your conclusion.
3. Write the recklessness paragraph so that it is unmistakably subjective.
4. Draft both forms of common assault as fallbacks for a case where injury is doubtful.
5. Run the lawful excuse list against a bar fight and say which exits are even arguable.
6. Argue the gross violence circumstances both ways from a set of planning messages and conclude which of s 15A or s 16 survives.
7. After a failed murder fault element write the one line disposals of ss 15A to 17 and land the cascade on s 18.