Many people assume that assault is a simple crime, however, cases can often be complex and emotionally charged. There are several elements that constitute an assault, with one of them being intent to harm the victim.
While intent is required, it can often be hard to prove, and a skilled lawyer can use this to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. Here we’ll break down the process of proving intent in an assault and see how it can affect the outcome of a case.
Understanding Assault and Intent in Canadian Law
It’s important to understand there are several types of assault in Canada ranging from simple assault to the much more serious aggravated assault. While these types have different thresholds and punishments, they all have the same definition of what constitutes an assault.
Assault is where one person intentionally attempts or threatens to apply force, or physically interferes with another person without consent. If the accused had no intention of applying the force, then theoretically they must be acquitted.
The Crown prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intent to commit the assault. If the physical contact was committed accidently or for a justifiable reason (such as protecting someone from harm) the defence lawyer can use that to fight for an acquittal.
Related Article: https://www.agpllp.ca/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery-in-canada/
The Burden of Proof
The burden of proof lies with the Crown prosecutor. As we mentioned, it’s up to the prosecutor to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Putting it another way, your assault lawyer doesn’t need to prove there wasn’t intent, but merely provide enough doubt about the intent.
Sometimes there isn’t any doubt about intent, such as in a one-on-one bar brawl. Other times, it’s not always obvious. If there is any doubt, your lawyer will use that to make it clear to the judge or jury that the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt cannot be reached.
Types of Intent in Assault Cases
Another important factor to know is there are two types of intent, specific and general. Which category a case falls into can affect defence strategy.
General Intent – Here is when it’s alleged the accused has committed assault but without harm being their primary goal. An example would be throwing an object in anger and causing injury. Here, the accused had a general attempt to cause harm, but without a specific outcome.
Specific Intent – This is when the accused not only commits the act but has a conscious objective to do so. An example would be someone punching another in the ribs so that the wounds would be hidden beneath clothing.
It’s clear that general intent is much harder to defend against than specific intent. Specific intent can infer some premeditation and aforethought, which can be aggravating factors in an assault case.
The Role of Evidence in Proving Intent
Proving intent in an assault can be challenging. Ultimately, intent is a state of mind that, while sometimes quite obvious, cannot be directly observed. There are several methods that can be used by the prosecution to prove intent.
Witness Testimony – Witnesses are often used to provide critical insight into assault cases. They can testify about the accused’s behaviour, statements, and actions around the incident. For example, hearing threatening remarks can suggest intent.
Circumstances – The context of the assault is also pivotal. The likes of provocation, prior disputes, the nature of the contact, and character can be taken into account.
Physical Evidence – Items such as weapons, recordings, or photographs can be used to prove intent. For example, if the accused was carrying a weapon, then this would support the argument of intent.
Statements from the Accused – The judge or jury will also listen to statements from the accused. A part of this can be useful for intent. If the accused has been threatened in the past, for example, this can indicate intent.
Expert Testimony – In some cases, experts can be called upon to provide opinions on the accused’s mental state. This can be especially important if there are claims of mental illness or impairment.
Defending Against Allegations of Intent
There are many ways to beat an assault charge in Canada. An experienced lawyer can use several tactics to cast doubt on the case, but here’s how they can argue against intent:
Accident – It could be argued that the contact was an accident, with no intent to harm. An example of this would be bumping into someone in a crowded setting, causing them injury.
Mental Capacity – A lawyer can claim the accused wasn’t in the right mental state to form intent. Examples can be if they were intoxicated or had mental health issues. This isn’t always a complete defence, but they can be mitigating factors.
Consent – To commit assault, there must be a lack of consent. If it can be argued the accused thought content was given, they can’t have intended to assault. An example of this can be horseplay, where two parties are roughhousing each other.
Other Factors – There are several other defences that can link in with assault. Examples are self-defence, provocation, mistaken identity, and lack of motive. Successfully arguing these can lead to acquittal or lesser punishment.
Related Article: https://www.agpllp.ca/how-to-beat-an-assault-charge-in-canada/
Final Thoughts
Proving intent in an assault is a critical aspect of any assault case. An assault can’t have been committed without intent, and an experienced lawyer can use this to cast doubt on the case. It’s vital to seek legal advice to ensure you give your case the best possible chance.
A good lawyer can ultimately be the difference between a guilty verdict and acquittal. If you need experienced legal representation, call AGP LLP today. We’ll be happy to review your case and see how we can help.
