Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAWS1006 Case Analysis and Commentary Assignment Draft 1
LAWS1006 Case Analysis and Commentary Assignment Draft 1
University of Sydney
LAWS1006 Foundations of Law
Semester 1 2019
SID: 490401088
Word count (excl. header/footer and this page):
SID: 490401088 1
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
1. Case note
Material facts
Main fact: The appellant transmitted the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to
the complainant.
1. Awareness
transmission.
2. Frequency of conduct
3. Lies
a. The complainant
i. The appellant did not reveal his HIV status until 5 days after
b. The police
SID: 490401088 2
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Procedural history
District Court of Queensland Judge Dick Convicted under s 317(b) 9.5 years imprisonment
offence (s 320).
Morrison JJA
Applegarth J (dissenting)
Legal issues
SID: 490401088 3
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Reasoning
(46, 47)
Knowledge/foresight of result, Appellant was reckless. This does Evidence does not establish
subjective Evidence insufficient to prove Evidence insufficient to exclude Evidence establishes, at most,
intention? intent beyond reasonable doubt. hypothesis that appellant engaged foresight of risk and thus
1
[41]
SID: 490401088 4
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Ratio decidendi
Therefore, when both a criminal act and an intent to perform that act is required for an
offence, conduct despite foresight of risk coupled with the criminal act is not
i.e.:
Recklessness ≠ Intent
Obiter dicta
Court orders
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Substitute the verdict found by the jury with a verdict of guilty for the
SID: 490401088 5
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
2. Analysis
Statute should be interpreted according to its intention2. The literal approach involves
finding that intention “by an examination of the language used in the natural sense”3.
When the plain meaning of the language employed by the Act has been ascertained,
the court must abide by this definition in their judgement4. Therefore, the literal
definition of the words in the statute is the ultimate authority for its interpretation.
The meaning of several phrases in s 317(b) and 320 of the Code were interpreted
Kiefel, Bell, and Keane JJ stated that HIV “is a serious disease for the purposes of s
with definitions given in s 1. The court did not discuss whether HIV fit under these
definitions, implying the use of common sense to determine the applicability of the
Act’s definitions to HIV. Hence, the natural meaning of the definition, and thus the
literal approach, was employed to establish that HIV was a ‘serious disease’ and
2
s 15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
3
Higgins J in Engineers’ Case
4
Higgon v O’Dea (1962) WAR 140
5
[1]
6
[2]
SID: 490401088 6
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
2. ‘intent’
To be liable under the Code requires proof of “an actual, subjective, intention on the
The court accepts Connolly J’s definition of ‘intent’ in Willmot8 as requiring the
from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it is evident the court has used the literal
effectively applied to the case’s material facts – a clear “mismatch between the
Firstly, this case concerns the appellant’s awareness of probable HIV transmission.
The court opposes Conolly J’s statement in Willmot11 that awareness of risk infers
7
R v Zaburoni (2016) 256 CLR 482 at [11]
8
R v Willmot [No 2] [1985] 2 Qd R 413 at 418
9
[8], [9]
10
(Readings) 2-K
11
R v Willmot [No 2] [1985] 2 Qd R 413 at 419
SID: 490401088 7
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
intent on the basis that it contradicts his earlier recognition of the natural definition of
‘intent’12. This is evidential of the court’s literal approach. Accordingly, the court
Secondly, the court clarifies the concept of “purpose or design”, explaining that
‘purpose’ is distinct from ‘motive’ and ‘desire’14. As per s 23(3) of the Code, ‘motive’
is the reason behind the purpose or intention15. The court refers to Willmot to establish
that a person may intend a certain outcome without desiring it. Therefore, the
appellant’s possible desires or motives to transmit HIV are irrelevant to his intent.
Ultimately, the court’s use of precedent clarifies their literal approach to interpreting
intent, so that their dictionary definition of the term is readily applicable to this
particular case.
12
[10]
13
R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64 at 83 [67]
14
[16]
15
[17]
SID: 490401088 8
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
3. Commentary
Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. When an inference that does not
This case exhibits such a situation. Therefore, I agree that the evidence does not
support a conviction.
I accept the natural definition of ‘intent’ as the directing of the mind, having a purpose
or design16. Thus, the inferences that can be drawn from the available evidence are
appellant’s mind.
Action 1
Action 2
Action 3
PURPOSE
16
[8]
SID: 490401088 9
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Now, we must consider how the 3 material facts fit within the appellant’s direction of
mind.
Lies to complainant
It is an inevitable inference by common sense
The court was correct in stating that frequency does not defy description as “mere
recklessness”23, as the level of risk in question is not the actual degree of risk, but the
17
[44]
18
[20]
19
[24], [28]
20
[47], [70]
21
[30]
22
[38]
23
[4]
SID: 490401088 10
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
pleasure24.
Lies to complainant
Unprotected sex
Frequency
Given that the appellant’s purpose was to attain sexual pleasure, it is a sensible
inference that the appellant perceived undertaking the risk of transmission as an action
24
[44]
SID: 490401088 11
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Lies to complainant
Risk of transmission
Unprotected sex
Frequency
transmission is not synonymous with the intent to transmit – in law, awareness of risk
(recklessness) is distinct from intention25. However, the perceived level of risk can
certainty of outcome establishes intent (guilt), while anything less merely infers
recklessness (innocence).
25
[10], [55]
SID: 490401088 12
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Therefore, two inferences can now be drawn from the available evidence – the
Lies to complainant
Unprotected sex
Frequency
SID: 490401088 13
LAWS 1006 CASE ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ASSIGNMENT
Recklessness ≠ Intent
This fact of law creates an inference of innocence – in the case that it cannot be
1. Lies to the:
All other available evidence is insignificant and insufficient for proving intent.
outcome that prevents a conviction. The court fails to describe how such perception
example, if the medical appointments, where the appellant denied having received
prior diagnosis of HIV, were booked before the complainant’s possible diagnosis, this
Nonetheless, such evidence is not available and the available evidence is insufficient
to disprove the inference of innocence. Where both inferences of guilt and innocence
26
[49]
SID: 490401088 14