R v Deng - [2022] SADC 61

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v DENG
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 61
Judgment of his Honour Judge Stretton
16 May 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - OTHER PARTICULAR CASES
It was alleged that the accused had been in a relationship with a man for 10 years and bore him several children, but he had formed a relationship with another woman, which she did not accept. On 15 January 2019 she travelled interstate from Melbourne to Adelaide to the house where the man and the woman were staying, entered the house in the early hours of the morning and bit a substantial portion of the woman’s lip off, spat it onto the floor, and decamped. The bite and the injury were not in dispute. The issue at trial was whether the prosecution had proven that her actions were not in self-defence.
Held: The accused deliberately attacked the victim with no justification or lawful excuse and did so for the purpose of disfiguring her, thereby causing serious harm and being at least reckless as to the causing of serious harm.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 15, 21(a), referred to.
R v Dransfield [2016] SASCFC 68, applied.
BCM v R [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213; Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64; R v R, R & R LJ [2008] SASC 35; R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150, considered.

R v DENG
[2022] SADC 61

The accused Akur Aleer Deng is charged with Recklessly Causing Serious Harm to Achol Gai on 15 January 2019 at Broadview, being reckless as to whether serious harm was caused.
Recklessly causing serious harm
The elements of the offence of recklessly causing serious harm are as follows:
1.That the accused caused serious harm to another person. Serious harm is defined to include harm that endangers a person’s life or, consists of, or results in serious and protracted impairment of a physical or mental function, or harm that consists of, or results in serious disfigurement.[1]
2. The accused’s acts were voluntary.
3.The accused was reckless in causing serious harm. Recklessness in causing serious harm occurs where the accused is aware of a substantial risk that her conduct could result in serious harm and engages in the conduct despite the risk and without adequate justification. It requires proof of an active thought process.[2]
4.The accused acted unlawfully. The prosecution must prove that the accused’s actions were unlawful, in other words were not lawfully justified on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Deng

Details

AGLC: R v Deng [2022] SADC 61
Case: [2022] SADC 61
Decision Date: 16 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Deng, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The incident involved a violent altercation between Deng and the complainant, which resulted in the complainant sustaining significant facial injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Deng's actions constituted an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Specifically, the court needed to determine if Deng's attack on the complainant was deliberate and if he intended to cause or was reckless as to causing serious harm. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Deng's actions were justified under the defence of protecting persons or property.

The court found that Deng had deliberately attacked the complainant, aiming to disfigure her. There was no evidence to support any justification or lawful excuse for the assault. Deng's intention to cause harm and his reckless disregard for the potential consequences were clearly established by the evidence. The court held that Deng's actions were not only unlawful but also extremely harmful, resulting in serious bodily injury to the complainant. Consequently, the court found Deng guilty of the charge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: The accused deliberately attacked the victim with no justification or lawful excuse and did so for the purpose of disfiguring her, thereby causing serious harm and being at least reckless as to the causing of serious harm.

Verdict: Guilty.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.