R v Lawarik - [2025] SADC 124

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LAWARIK
[2025] SADC 124
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Handshin
21 October 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS
In the early morning hours of 17 February 2024, the accused stabbed a man once to the chest on Rundle Street following a brief interaction. The incident was recorded on CCTV. The accused was subsequently charged with aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm. He elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone. At the commencement of the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to aggravated causing serious harm with intent but guilty to the charged alternative offence of recklessly causing serious harm, thereby admitting that he had deliberately stabbed the alleged victim; that the alleged victim suffered serious harm within the meaning of s 21 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 (SA) as a result; that he had no lawful excuse or justification for stabbing the alleged victim; and that at the time he stabbed the alleged victim, the accused was aware of the substantial risk that stabbing the alleged victim could result in serious harm and engaged in that conduct without adequate justification. The accused's plea was not accepted in satisfaction of the Information.
The prosecution case at trial was presented essentially by way of agreement. A number of exhibits and CCTV camera recordings were tendered by consent. In light of the accused’s plea to the alternative charge, the sole forensic contest between the parties was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to endanger the alleged victim’s life by stabbing him.
Held: the accused is guilty of aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm. The movements of the accused before and after the stabbing; the motion he used to stab the alleged victim; the proximity of the two at the time of the stabbing; the force of the stabbing motion, in combination with the nature and characteristics of the knife used by the accused, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause serious harm to the alleged victim. The hypothesis that the accused may not have formed an actual intention to endanger the alleged victim’s life given the speed with which the incident unfolded was excluded by the totality of the evidence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 21, 23(1), (3); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34P(2)(a) and 34P(3), referred to.
R v Dookheea (2017) 262 CLR 402; R v HJS (2020) 137 SASR 280; Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; R…

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 Lawarik

Details

AGLC: R v Lawarik [2025] SADC 124
Case: [2025] SADC 124
Decision Date: 21 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the respondent against a conviction for aggravated assault. The respondent was found to have committed an assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the victim. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury in relation to the meaning of "actual bodily harm". The respondent argued that the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on the meaning of this term, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in his direction to the jury. The court held that the term "actual bodily harm" should be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning, which includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. The court further held that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider whether the injury caused to the victim was more than merely transient or trifling, and whether it was of a nature that would cause ordinary people to seek medical attention. The court found that the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on this point, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

As a result of the court's finding, the respondent's conviction for aggravated assault was quashed and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial. The court held that it was necessary to ensure that the jury was properly directed on the meaning of "actual bodily harm" in order to ensure a fair trial for the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed on the meaning of legal terms in order to avoid miscarriages of justice.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders