Kamara v The State

Facts

The appellant punched a ferry headman, causing him to lose an eye.

Issue

Was he rightly convicted of wounding with intent under section 18 rather than under section 20?

Held

Yes. Intent could be inferred from the natural and probable consequences of the act (DPP v Smith), and the section 18 conviction stood.

Principle

Intent to do grievous bodily harm may be inferred from the nature of the act and its consequences.

Why it matters

Illustrates the section 18 / section 20 distinction.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.