Previous Topic

Next Topic

Book Contents

Book Index

7.4.3.3 - Charge: Intentionally Causing Injury (Pre-1/7/13)

Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation.

[This charge should be given if the offence was allegedly committed before 1 July 2013. If the offence was allegedly committed on or after 1 July 2013, use Charge: Intentionally Causing Injury (From 1/7/13).]

I must now direct you about the crime of intentionally causing injury. To prove this crime, the prosecution must prove the following four elements beyond reasonable doubt:

One - that the complainant suffered an injury.

Two - that the accused caused the complainant’s injury.

Three - that the accused intended to injure the complainant.

Four - that the accused acted without lawful justification or excuse.

I will now explain each of these elements in more detail.

Injury

The first element that the prosecution must prove is that the complainant suffered an injury.

The law defines the word "injury" to include "unconsciousness, hysteria, pain and any substantial impairment of bodily function". It also includes all the things that you would, as a matter of ordinary experience, call an injury.

In this case, the prosecution alleged that NOC suffered an injury because [insert prosecution evidence and/or arguments]. The defence denied this, arguing [insert defence evidence and/or arguments]. It is only if you are satisfied that NOC was injured that this first element will be met.

Causation

The second element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused caused the complainant’s injury.

If causation is not in issue, add the following shaded section

In this case it is not disputed that NOA [insert relevant causal acts], and that doing so caused NOC’s injury. You should therefore have no difficulty finding this element proven.

If the cause of the complainant’s injury is not disputed, but the accused denies committing the relevant acts, add the following shaded section

In this case it is not disputed that [insert relevant causal acts] caused NOC to be injured. However, the defence contends that NOA did not commit those acts. For this element to be met, you must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was NOA who [insert relevant causal acts].

[If causation is in issue for another reason (such as the existence of multiple possible causes, or the intervention of a third party), a relevant charge from Causation: Charges should be adapted and inserted here.]

Intention

The third element relates to the accused’s state of mind. The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that at the time the accused did the acts that you find caused the complainant’s injury, s/he intended to injure NOC.

It is not, however, necessary that NOA intended to inflict the injury that NOC actually suffered. This third element will be satisfied even if NOA intended to inflict a different kind of injury.

In this case the prosecution submitted that NOA intentionally [describe relevant act and describe relevant evidence and/or arguments]. The defence responded [insert relevant evidence and/or arguments]. When you are considering this evidence, you will remember what I told you earlier about drawing inferences.

Without Lawful Justification or Excuse

The fourth element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused acted without lawful justification or excuse.

If no defences are open on the evidence, add the following shaded section

In this case, there is no issue that [if/when] NOA [describe relevant acts], s/he acted without lawful justification or excuse. You should therefore have no difficulty finding this element proven.

[If any defences are open on the evidence, insert directions from the relevant topics here.]

Application of Law to Evidence

[If not previously done, apply the law to the relevant evidence here.]

Summary

To summarise, before you can find NOA guilty of intentionally causing injury, the prosecution must prove to you beyond reasonable doubt:

One – That NOC was injured; and

Two – That NOA caused that injury; and

Three – That NOA intended to injure NOC; and

Four – That NOA acted without lawful justification or excuse.

If you find that any of these elements have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find NOA not guilty of intentionally causing injury.

 

Last updated: 1 July 2013

See Also

7.4.3 - Intentionally Causing Injury

7.4.3.1 - Charge: Intentionally Causing Injury (From 1/7/13)

7.4.3.2 - Checklist: Intentionally Causing Injury (From 1/7/13)

7.4.3.4 - Checklist: Intentionally Causing Injury (Pre-1/7/13)