Elements of the Offence
Aggravated assault is an unlawful act, which implies an individual’s or a group’s intent to inflict harm or cause aggravated injury to another person or several people. The 2022 edition of Martin’s Annual Criminal Code defines aggravated assault as a criminal offense, indicating its elements, defense, case law, and penalties. According to the Code, aggravated assault is committed when one wounds, disfigures, maims, or directly endangers the life of another (Greenspan et al., 2021). The text of Martin’s Code specifies that aggravated assault is an indictable offense. It is crucial to note that an indictable offense is a much more serious crime than a summary offense in Canada. In comparison to a summary offense, “an indictable offense must proceed by formal indictment and often carries a penalty that results in the person being sent to federal prison” (Goodman, 2020, p. 1118).
In regards to the elements of the offense, there are three primary ones, which include actus reus, mens rea, and proximate causation (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Actus reus refers to the act itself. In the case of aggravated assault, an individual conducts oneself in an unlawful manner by maiming, endangering someone’s life, or disfiguring. To be especially certain and avoid any misunderstandings, the authors who have critically reviewed the most well-known Canadian criminal m as manual provide clarifications. Thus, the definition of “maims” and “wounds” “includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in half, the labla majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person” (Greenspan et al., 2021, s. 268). Despite that, there are certain exceptions, such as surgical procedures performed by trained and qualified medical staff. Another exception is the absence of bodily harm inflicted upon a legal adult of 18 years of age or older.
Mens rea is defined as the mental elemental of a crime, which refers to a certain malicious, criminal intent. According to Martin’s Criminal Code, the mens rea of aggravated assault is “objective foresight of bodily harm,” which does not “require proof of an intent to maim, wound or disfigure” (Greenspan et al., 2021, s. 268). As for proximate causation, in its essence, it is the event, which has had a significant effect on the injury in question. Thus, the court deems a specific event the primary cause of that wound or injury, which should be regarded as having immediate responsibility for it. Proximate causation is usually dictated by general rules or regulated based on case-by-case scenarios.
Defence
In regards to the options available to defendants, they can simply deny any involvement as is possible with any other criminal case. However, in addition to that, the defense team might advise the client to claim self-defense. Firstly, if supported by evidence, this claim would establish with the court that the defendant had not initiated he confrontation. It would ensure that a criminal law jury at least considers the course of events, which might be able to justify the defendant’s actions to protect themselves or others. Moreover, it could potentially discredit the story and claims of the alleged victim. The defense team can use the weapon involved in the attack to demonstrate it has initially been in the victim’s possession or the complainant directly confronted the defendant first. On the other hand, a form of defense may be in demonstrating that the actions of the accused had no malicious intent. Thus, the outcome of their behavior towards the victim could be considered purely accidental.
Case Law
In contrast with civil law, case law is based upon past judicial decisions, rather than existing formal requirements and regulations. Therefore, case law, also referred to as common law, includes a set of precedents, which are in action as a result of judicial rulings in the past (Grety, 2019). Martin’s Criminal Code examines a variety of such precedents. For instance, R. v. Pootlass (2019) clarifies the definition of “wound” defined in court. R. v. Littlerent (1985) added to the terminology as well by demonstrating a peculiar case where an injury did not imply an essential element of wounding – breaking. R. v. De Freitas (1999) allowed to specify what endangerment of life constituted. The action of the assaulter must directly endanger the life of the victim, and not only have the potential to do so. R v. Carriere (1987) made it clear that “consent is no defence to this offence where the injuries were caused by use of a weapon such as a knife” (Greenspan et al., 2021, s. 268). These are merely some of the examples of case law in relation to aggravated assault.
Penalties
As for the penalties, the Code specifically indicates that those proven to be guilty of aggravated assault must face the liability to imprisonment. The maximum term of imprisonment for this offense is fourteen years, according to Greenspan et al. (2021). As for minimum penalties, aggravated assault does not imply any. The same stands true in regards to consecutive sentences, which are not regulated by specific formal requirements. Since aggravated assault is one of the most serious crimes, which the Code classified as an indictable offense, its penalties must include incarceration. As mentioned earlier, the term of imprisonment does not exceed fourteen years.
References
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Criminal law. Law Cornell. Web.
Goodman, P. (2020). “Work your story”: Selective voluntary disclosure, stigma management, and narratives of seeking employment after prison. Law & Social Inquiry, 45(4), 1113–1141. Web.
Greenspan, E., Henein, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2021). Martin’s annual criminal code (2022 ed.). Carswell.
Grety, C. (2019). The role of case-law from the sources of law perspectives. European Journal of Social Law, 3(44), 126–131. Web.