Unspecified intent and grievous bodily harm

Facts of the case: following the sudden emergence of personal hostility, the defendant, without intending to cause grievous bodily harm and without wishing for or foreseeing the victim’s possible death, although he should and could have foreseen it, struck the victim with a wooden stick. He delivered one blow to the posterior area of the inner surface of the right forearm, one to the back of the right elbow joint, one to the back of the right upper arm, one to the back of the right hand, one to the back of the left forearm and one to the right frontoparietal region of the head. Among the resulting injuries were grievous bodily injuries that were life-threatening when inflicted and caused the victim’s death.

Positions of the trial and appellate courts: the trial court reclassified the defendant’s conduct from Article 121(2) to Article 119(1) of the Criminal Code. The appellate court set aside that judgment and delivered its own, finding him guilty and convicting him under Article 121(2).

In the cassation appeal, defence counsel argued that the location of the victim’s injuries did not establish an intention to cause grievous harm. According to the expert opinion, five bruises and four abrasions were minor injuries located only on the backs of the forearms and hands, while only one blow was delivered to the head. Counsel maintained that this showed that the blows were directed mainly at the limbs rather than vital organs.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court: the appellate judgment was upheld.

Reasoning of the Criminal Cassation Court: the panel noted the appellate court’s finding that the convicted person continued deliberately to strike the victim with considerable force using a wooden stick, which broke from the impact, even when the victim covered his head with his hands. By effectively targeting the head, a vital organ, he understood the socially dangerous nature of his actions and foresaw their dangerous consequences. He therefore acted intentionally and, although not wishing it, consciously accepted that such a blow could cause grievous bodily harm. His conduct thus involved indirect, unspecified intent as to grievous bodily harm: he accepted the socially dangerous consequences of his actions, namely serious harm to the victim’s health, without specifying their severity in his mind. As regards death, his guilt took the form of criminal negligence. By delivering a forceful blow with a wooden stick to the hands covering the victim’s head, having regard to the nature and location of the injuries, he foresaw the possibility of serious harm and, even if he did not foresee death, he could and should have foreseen it.

According to the facts established by the appellate court, the convicted person’s conduct was active and unlawful, and there was a direct causal connection between his actions and the grievous bodily injury that caused the victim’s death. In delivering blows with the stick, including to the hands covering the victim’s head, he understood that the impact would be forceful and that his actions as a whole could cause serious harm through a direct blow to the head.

The panel considered that the convicted person acted intentionally and, if he did not wish it, consciously accepted that his conduct—striking with the stick, including at the hands covering the head—might cause serious harm to the victim’s health.

Having assessed the established circumstances, including evidence of the method of committing the offence, the reasons for the conflict, its duration, and the nature, location and mechanism of the injuries, the appellate court correctly concluded, beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of the combined relevant and admissible evidence, that the conduct fell under Article 121(2), rather than Article 119(1), of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court observed that, according to established case law, a person who deliberately inflicts blows without specifying in their mind the actual harm to the victim’s health, or severity of bodily injury, that will result acts with unspecified intent. Although wishing to cause harm or consciously accepting its possibility, the person does not set precise limits on its severity in their mind. In such cases, the perpetrator is liable for the result or harm actually caused. As regards the victim’s death, guilt is only negligent: although the person neither wished for nor consciously accepted that outcome, they should and could have foreseen that their criminal actions might also cause death.