Zaburoni v R [2016] HCA 12: Intent to Transmit HIV
Wednesday 6 April 2016 @ 11.49 a.m. | Legal Research
Today (6 April 2016) the High Court has unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The High Court held that where proof of intention to produce a particular result is made an element of liability for an offence, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused meant to produce that result by his or her conduct. The majority reasoned that knowledge or foresight of result, whether possible, probable or certain, is not a substitute for proof of specific intent.
Background to the Case
After the appellant (Zaburoni) was diagnosed with HIV in April 1998, he commenced a sexual relationship with the complainant in December 2006 involving unprotected sex, and in 2009 after the relationship had ended she was diagnosed with HIV. Throughout this time, the appellant denied on multiple occassions that he had HIV, claimed that he only knew about having HIV 6 months after the relationship had ended, and lied to police about these matters.
Zaburoni was convicted of transmitting a serious disease with intent, contrary to s 317 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) and sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment.
The appellant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal contending, that the verdict was unreasonable as the evidence did not establish that he intended to transmit HIV to the complainant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The majority held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to transmit HIV to the complainant, in circumstances in which he had engaged in frequent acts of unprotected sexual intercourse with her, knowing that he was HIV positive.
The High Court Appeal
By grant of special leave, the appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that where liability for an offence requires proof of intention to produce a particular result, the prosecution must establish that the accused had that result as his or her purpose or object at the time of engaging in the conduct:
"Purpose is not to be equated with motive and a person may engage in conduct having more than one purpose. A person's awareness of the risk that his or her conduct may result in harm does not, without more, support the inference that the person intended to produce the harm."
The Court set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and substituted for the verdict of the jury a verdict of guilty of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to the complainant, to which the appellant had pleaded guilty. The proceedings were remitted to the District Court of Queensland for sentence.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
Zaburoni v R [2016] HCA 12
Opinions on High - Melbourne University Blog
