Vallance v The Queen [1961] HCA 42

Vallance v The Queen [1961] HCA 42

A direction to require a specific intent to wound was not required by law; it sufficed for conviction if the applicant’s conduct was voluntary and intentional and he foresaw, or should have foreseen, the likelihood of causing injury, acting with recklessness or wanton indifference. The trial judge’s direction placed...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia – Determination of Special Leave Application
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['criminal Responsibility' 'mens Rea (intention and Recklessness)' 'unlawful Wounding' 'interpretation of Codified Criminal Statutes']
['criminal Law'] ['criminal Responsibility' 'mens Rea (intention and Recklessness)' 'unlawful Wounding' 'interpretation of Codified Criminal Statutes']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia – Determination of Special Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Is a specific intent to wound required for conviction under s. 172 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code?' 'How do the mental elements of intention and recklessness apply under s. 13(1) in the context of unlawful wounding?' "Whether the judge's direction to the jury in the original trial was correct in law."]

Ratio Decidendi

A direction to require a specific intent to wound was not required by law; it sufficed for conviction if the applicant’s conduct was voluntary and intentional and he foresaw, or should have foreseen, the likelihood of causing injury, acting with recklessness or wanton indifference. The trial judge’s direction placed a greater burden on the prosecution than the law required under s. 172 and s. 13(1) of the Code.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused.']