In South Australia, there are two offences of causing serious harm to a person.
The first offence is found in section 23 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which makes it an offence for a person to do something, or omit to do something, which causes serious harm to another person. To be guilty, you must have intended to cause serious harm or reckless about whether or not serious harm would occur.
The second offence is found in section 29(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation 1935, which makes it an offence for a person, without lawful excuse, to do an act or make an omission, which they know is likely to cause serious harm to another and intends to do so or is reckless about whether or not serious harm will occur.
Serious harm includes:
Whether a person is charged with causing serious harm under section 23 or section 29(2) will be decided by police. Each offence imposes a different penalty. Therefore, the decision will usually depend on the degree of injury to the victim, whether the victim was a vulnerable person and whether or not a weapon was used.
If you are charged with a offence of causing serious harm but a jury finds that you are not guilty of that offence, a jury may still find you guilty of a lesser offence of causing harm.
The maximum penalty for an offence of causing serious harm under section 23 depends on whether or not the offence is aggravated, and whether or not it was intentional.
The maximum penalty for an offence against section 29 depends on whether or not the offences is aggravated.
It is a complete defence to a charge of causing serious harm if we can show that you were acting under duress. That is, you were acting as a result of violence, or some other threat against you. You will have a defence to this charge if we can demonstrate that you were coerced into the act by a third party, effectively rendering you an instrument of someone else’s criminal conduct.
The common law defence of necessity operates where the circumstances at hand (natural or human threats) require you to break the law in order to avoid even more dire consequences. There is, thus, some overlap with the defence of duress. It will need to be shown that you believed on reasonable grounds that you were placed in a situation of imminent peril. You may have a medical justification, or it may be the case that you were acting in the course of protecting yourself or someone else.
Essentially, the Court will need to weigh up the act you have committed, against the harm you would have experienced had you not acted in that manner. The Court will also need to be convinced that the act was proportionate to the potential harm.
The law recognises that, in some cases, people will not be capable of evaluating the nature and quality of their conduct or more categorically, they will not know what they are doing is wrong. If it can be shown that you were suffering from some sort of mental disease, disorder or disturbance, as distinguished from a mere lack of self-control or impulsiveness, then you may have a defence to this charge.
Mental impairments may be either permanent or non-permanent and may include disorders such as:
This is a major indictable charge. The proceedings will initially commence in the Magistrates Court of South Australia. If there is sufficient evidence against you, the matter will then be transferred to the District Court of South Australia.
We have defended thousands of criminal cases over many decades and constantly achieve outstanding results for our clients. Please view our results by clicking the cases below:
Call us on (08) 8110 7900 to make an appointment with one of the knowledgeable lawyers for assistance with your matter.
Fill in your details below to make an appointment with one of expert defence lawyers for assistance with your matter.
Our client was charged with two counts of trafficking in controlled drug.
Our client pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three and a half years, with an 18 month non-parole period, suspended upon him entering into an 18 month good behaviour bond, supervised by the Department of Corrections for 12 months. An excellent result for the client.
Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug.
Our client was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, namely 700 tablets of ecstasy.
A search warrant was executed on his property with the drugs being found, some tick lists and an amount of $10,000.00 cash.
Shortly after arrest, we secured our client counselling in a drug rehabilitation facility. Further, reference material was obtained from family and friends as well as urine analysis to demonstrate the rehabilitative process that the client had undertaken.
Ultimately, he received a term of imprisonment of two years, one day and six months suspended upon him entering into a good behaviour bond.
The client was charged with trafficking ecstasy, possession of firearms, fail to store ammunition and possessing an unregistered firearm.
He received a total of three years and five months, with a two year non-parole period, suspended upon him entering into a $1,000.00 good behaviour bond, and to be under supervision for 12 months.
