Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules that the statutory offense of threatening another person with a syringe necessitates a subjective element of fault. The court determined that the statutory language "where there is a likelihood" of causing fear of infection does not unambiguously mandate an objective standard of recklessness. Instead, it can be interpreted to require that the accused must have consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk, aligning with the constitutional imperative for a guilty mind as an essential element of serious crime. This interpretation upholds the constitutional guarantees of liberty and the dignity of the individual, ensuring that only those who are subjectively aware of the risk their actions pose can be found criminally liable.
Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, syringe threat offense, subjective fault, mens rea, subjective recklessness, constitutional interpretation, criminal liability, actus reus, High Court, presumption of constitutionality, statutory interpretation, criminal law, subjective standard, objective recklessness, guilty mind, fundamental rights.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now