In a wholly circumstantial child abuse case where the only evidence of intent is the nature and degree of force applied to an infant, the acts themselves may provide the most cogent evidence of specific intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and the alternative hypothesis of spontaneous loss of control without awareness of the potential for serious injury may amount to no more than a bare possibility of innocence. However, the dissent illustrates that this conclusion is not inevitable, particularly where the mechanism of injury is unusual and the common human experience of frustration and loss of control in infant care is considered.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.