APPEAL BRIEF I GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A Ben Starke 1 Is an Offence with Specific Intent to Cause GBH Established? If Ben has committed an act with intent to cause GBH, he is guilty of a crime under s 317.1 To establish this offence, Ben must have exercised 'a subjective intent' to do some GBH to Mrs Varris 'to achieve [a] described result'.2 (a) Intent 'Intention is a "purpose or design" ... to bring about the [particular] result.'3 In this case, it is satisfied by '[any] person who, with intent', does '[GBH] ... to any person'.4 (i) Any Person Ben and Mrs Varris are both natural persons.5 (ii) Intent to do GBH Ben's initial purpose was to cause GBH to Mr Varris. However, his act made direct contact with Mrs Varris instead. This has no effect on his liability because 'with any offence of which ... intent to injure ... is an element, it is not necessary to prove an intent to injure ... to any particular person'.6 Therefore, the accused's throwing of the cricket bat in the direction of the Varris' is sufficient 'direct evidence' to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended GBH.7 If Ben's actions caused GBH, intent is satisfied. GBH is defined to encompass serious disfigurement and endangerment to life and health.8 Mrs Varris suffered dislocation of the 1 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). 2 Supreme Court of Queensland, Supreme and District Courts Benchbook (Queensland Courts, 2017) 101. 3 R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64 [90]. 4 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 317(1)(b). 5 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 32D. 6 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 643. 7 R v Willmot (No 2) (1985) 2 Qd R 413 [419]; R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64; Zaburoni v R [2016] HCA 12. 8 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 1.
right TMJ and severe facial bruising; it must be considered whether these injuries constitute GBH. An injury that only affects the body's appearance, not its functioning, is not GBH.9 The bruising suffered by the victim is not serious disfigurement because it merely affects her appearance and is not captured by s 317(1)(b). In relation to Mrs Varris's TMJ dislocation, the availability of medical assistance is not relevant; rather 'the nature of the injury at the time the harm was done' must be considered.10 A disfigurement which cannot 'resolve naturally and quickly is [likely] to be regarded as "serious".'11 Given the dislocation was unable to be treated on the scene, it was a serious injury at the time of harm which was unable to be resolved 'naturally and quickly'. Moreover, 'severe dislocation' was recognised as GBH in R v Kruezi.12 Therefore, Mrs Varris' dislocation is recognised GBH. (b) Act To satisfy s 317, a physical act described in (e)-(k) must be present alongside intent.13 Contrast can be drawn between the acts of Ben and those of Brannigan.14 It was established in this case that the baseball bat used to strike