this product is unavailable for purchase using a firm account, please log in with a personal account to make this purchase.

LIV offices remain closed.

Though we are working remotely to support our members.

Find out more
Select from any of the filters or enter a search term

High Court judgments

High Court judgments

By Andrew Yuile

Courts Judgment Practice & Procedure 

Criminal law Meaning of “inflicted” where accused caused contraction of disease – recklessness and foresight of risk In Aubrey v The Queen [2017] HCA 18 (10 May 2017) the appellant had unprotected sex with the complainant when the appellant knew he was HIV positive. The complainant was infected with HIV. The appellant was convicted on an alternative charge of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on the complainant, contrary to s35(1)(b) of the Crimes Act (NSW). There were two questions for the High Court. First, whether causing the contraction of a disease can come within “infliction” of harm. And second, whether recklessness, fulfilling the mental element of malice, was satisfied if the appellant foresaw the possibility, as opposed to the probability, of the contraction of the disease. On the first question, the High Court held that the decision in R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 should not be followed. For several reasons, including developments in English authorities since, the infliction of harm does not require a direct or immediate application of force resulting in injury.

The content you are trying to access is exclusive to LIV members*

To access your exclusive member content please click the 'Already a Member' button below and you will be redirected automatically.

Not a member but would like to find out about the value of LIV membership? Click the 'Become a Member' button below or call our membership team on (03) 9607 9470.

*Note that some content may be exclusive to specific types of members. If you would like to inquire about your access please contact the membership team on (03) 9607 9470.