Regina v Salisbury: 9 Oct 1972

Australia – Victoria The court considered the nature of the act required to found an allegation of assault: ‘It may be that the somewhat different wording of section 20 of the English Act has played a part in bringing about the existence of the two lines of authority in England, but, be that as it may, we have come to the conclusion that, although the word ‘inflicts’ . . does not have as wide a meaning as the word ’causes’ . . the word ‘inflicts’ does have a wider meaning than it would have if it were construed so that inflicting grievous bodily harm always involved assaulting the victim. In our opinion, grievous bodily harm may be inflicted . . either where the accused has directly and violently ‘inflicted’ it by assaulting the victim, or where the accused has ‘inflicted’ it by doing something, intentionally, which, though it is not itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, does directly result in force being applied violently to the body of the victim, so that he suffers grievous bodily harm. Hence, the lesser misdemeanours of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault . . are not necessarily included in the misdemeanour of inflicting grievous bodily harm . .’

Judges:

Young CJ, Nelson, Harris JJ

Citations:

[1976] VR 452, [1976] VicRp 45

Cited by:

CitedHaystead v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 2-Jun-2000
The defendant had hit a mother in the face as she held the child. The force was sufficient to cause her to drop the child causing injury to the child. He appealed against a conviction for beating the child.
Held: The appeal failed. A battery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.547668