Hayman v Cartwright

(2018) 53 WAR 137; [2018] WASCA 116

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Assault
3. › Definition of assault
4. › Assault by application of force
5. › Whether element of intention required
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 222
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Criminal Code
3. › Construction of code provisions
4. › Whether common law meaning of defined term should be imported
5. › Relationship between statutory definition and common law
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 222
1. Criminal Law
2. › Criminal responsibility
3. › Defences under Criminal Code
4. › Unwilled acts
5. › Accident
6. › Mistake of fact
7. › Relationship to elements of offence
8. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 23A, 23B, 24

Quick Take

Under s 222 of the Criminal Code (WA), the prosecution is not required to prove intention for an assault constituted by the actual application of force. The mental element for such assaults is supplied by the criminal responsibility provisions in Chapter V Part 1 (ss 23A, 23B, 24), not by the definition of assault itself. Murphy v Spencer is no longer good law insofar as it required proof of intention for assault by actual application of force. Hall v Fonceca is confined to assault by attempted or threatened application of force (the second limb of s 222).