The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Criminal intent > Comments

Criminal intent : Comments

By Andrew McGee and Andrew Garwood-Gowers, published 11/3/2016

This case concerns an appeal against conviction for transmitting a serious disease with intent under s 317(b) and (e) of the Queensland Criminal Code.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
There are no ifs, buts or maybes here!

If you know you are infected with a life threatening transmittable disease and deliberately engage in unsafe practices, that might, can and does result in terminal illness in a deliberately infected partner!

And is there just one possibly infected partner, and if there were, would this excuse for a man reveal it!

Where are a reveal all wikileaks, when they're genuinely needed? Or are they just more of the same, totally without conscience or morals, birds of a feather?

Given the complete absence of any extenuating circumstance! The action must be described as criminal intent, exactly as if you were pointing a loaded gun and playing russian roulette!

And no gray area as might ensue, given bona fide ignorance of your own medical status!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 11 March 2016 10:32:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These academics really amaze me? As a retired detective sergeant, all that needs to be clearly established by the crown; firstly is the mens rea (criminal intent). In the ZABURONI matter, the foresight of consequences, in other words 'a guilty knowledge'. ZABURONI 'knew' that, by having unprotected sex with his partner, without her knowing that he was HIV positive and over a protracted period of time, there was a distinct possibility it would lead to infecting her with the Aids virus. That clearly establishes his guilty 'knowledge'.

The actus reus (criminal act). Again, it was stated somewhere '...a criminal act alone does not make a person guilty of an offence, unless his mind is also guilty...' - a cardinal principle of English criminal law.

Why then do legal academics and appellant Justices wish to further complicate, confound and thoroughly elucidate, 'proofs' that have stood the test of time. That hitherto, have been successfully prosecuted, and subsequently withstood appeals, I really don't know?
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 11 March 2016 1:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu, thank you for your comment.

Our article was concerned with offences that require the prosecution to establish that the accused acted with a specific intent (eg. section 317 of the Queensland Criminal Code). For these types of offence, the law has long held that showing that the accused had knowledge or foresight of possible consequences isn't the same as establishing that the accused had an actual intent to cause those consequences. We illustrate this distinction between intent and foresight with the example of the police officer delivering bad news to relatives of a dead person.

Not all offences in Queensland require proof of intent. For instance, grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 320 of the Code just requires the prosecution to establish that the accused's actions caused GBH to the victim, without a specific mental element having to be established. In fact, the notion of mens rea (guilty mind) isn't a formal part of the criminal law in Queensland (or in other Code-based jurisdictions like Western Australia and Tasmania). It's limited to the criminal law in common law jurisdictions like England, NSW, Victoria etc.

It's important to remember that even if Zaburoni is successful in the High Court he will still be guilty of the lesser offence of GBH under section 320.
Posted by spy, Friday, 11 March 2016 3:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to clarify - the previous comment was also by me (Andrew Garwood-Gowers) but for some reason it appeared under a different username.
Posted by Andrew Garwood-Gowers, Friday, 11 March 2016 3:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good evening to you Andrew GARWOOD-GOWERS...

Thank you for qualifying your topic apropos it's precise application to that of the Qld. Criminal Code. I served in NSW which, as you correctly opined, is not a codified State rather relying on the Common Law. I accept both of you were merely describing, both the nuances and the postulatory application, of S.317b of the relevant Criminal Code, and speculating on the soon to be handed down, appellant judgement from the High Court.

For me to engage with either of you any further, with some esoteric contrary argument specifically on 'guilty knowledge' or 'intent per se', would prove to be a folly. Given my age and the fact I've retired, and my knowledge of the law is fading fast? Thank you gentleman, for bothering to address my queries in any event, I do appreciate it.

As an aside, I've always held the view, that the Law should be structured philosophically at least, observing the simplicity of 'Occam's razor'? If that were ever to happen, what would all our hard working lawyers do?
Posted by o sung wu, Friday, 11 March 2016 7:17:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew,

Criminal intent can also be inferred by one's actions. For example a person firing a handgun randomly into an occupied building might kill someone he never met, and while he might claim that he had no intent to kill this person, there is little doubt that he knew that firing the gun into a building had a significant chance of killing someone.

Similarly, someone that has contracted HIV through unprotected sex cannot claim to be ignorant of the consequences of unprotected sex.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 12 March 2016 3:06:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy