N Thu 25/08/2022 22:08 no-reply@qut.edu.au To: Jordan Sondergeld QUT HiQ Hi Jordan, Thank you for your assignment extension request (FORM-AEX-178087). We have approved your request and the due date for your assignment Advocacy Excercise, for unit LLB106 has been extended by 48 hours from the original due date. If your unit outline does not specify that your assignment is eligible for an extension, this confirmation email is not valid and unless you submit by the original due date, the late assessment policy will apply. You are responsible for ensuring that this assignment is eligible for extension before submitting it after the original due date. Check your unit outline for eliaibilitv.
Assault occasioning bodily harm: - Mr Mage guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm according to s 339 of QLD criminal code1. 1. Unlawfully- not authorised, justified, or excused by law (R v Knutsen)2. In the present case the accused actions are unlawful. 2. Assaults- s 335. - Applies force: Isitt v Commissioner of police3- must be intentional. In the present case the accused deliberately shines the laser in the complainants' eyes. - Directly or indirectly: satisfied on the facts. - Without consent: Either expressed or implied (Horan v Ferguson)4. In the present case it was not expressed or implied. Therefore, this element is satisfied. 3. Bodily harm: defined in s 15 as any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort. R v Scratchard6: must exceed mere sensation of harm. Grievous bodily harm with intent: s 317 and s 3207: 1. Unlawfully: already previously discussed, and defendants' actions were clearly unlawful. 2. Does: Must be link between act of the accused and the injury sustained by the complainant. Can either be act or omission (CC s 285 and 290)8. Defendants' actions of swing club were clearly linked to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. 3. GBH: Definition found in s 1 of CC9, which includes serious disfigurement. The complainant has suffered this as evidenced by the severe bruising and dislocated jaw. Type 2 Assault: 1. Threat to apply force: Hall v Fonceca10 states must be intentional threat to apply force. The defendant clearly threatened the complainant by his words and his swinging of the club. 2. By bodily act or gesture: R v Dale11 concludes that this must mean threatening words plus bodily act. This is clearly apparent in the current case when the defendant swings the club along with his menacing words. Therefore, this element is satisfied. 3. Apparent present ability: Brady v Schatzel12 states that the defendant must have had the apparent present ability to carry out the threat. In this case this element is clearly satisfied as the defendant had carried out the threatened act on another person moments before. 1 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 339 2 R v Knutsen [1963] Qd R 157 3 Isitt v The Commissioner of Police [2016] QDC 308 4 Horan v Ferguson [1994] QCA 375 5 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 339 6 R v Scatchard (1987) 27