R v Zaburoni

[2014] QCA 77

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence
4. › Circumstantial evidence
5. › Whether inference of intent to transmit serious disease was the only rational inference
6. › Whether recklessness excluded as reasonable hypothesis
7. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 317(b), (e), s 668E(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Elements of offences
3. › Intent
4. › Distinction between intent and recklessness
5. › Whether prolonged course of risky conduct with knowledge of risk permits inference of intent to bring about consequence
6. › Whether knowledge or foresight of probable consequences may be equated with intent
7. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 317
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Circumstantial evidence
4. › Lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt
5. › Whether lies told during relationship and to police necessarily evidenced intent to transmit disease rather than recklessness

Quick Take

A jury may infer intent to transmit a serious disease from a prolonged course of deceitful unprotected sexual intercourse where the accused knew of the risk of transmission, even without evidence of actual ill-will or knowledge of the statistical probability of transmission. R v Reid does not set a factual minimum for the exclusion of recklessness. However, the dissent highlights that the distinction between intent and recklessness in such cases remains a live issue, particularly where the accused's knowledge of the degree of risk is not established.