Published
July 22, 2026Public discussion of “assault charges” tends to borrow language from other jurisdictions — grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm — that has no place in Victorian law. The Victorian structure is its own, and understanding it matters, because the difference between one charge and its neighbour is frequently the difference between the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court, and between a fine and a mandatory custodial term.
The hierarchy runs, in ascending order of gravity: common assault; causing injury intentionally or recklessly (section 18 of the Crimes Act 1958); causing serious injury recklessly (section 17); causing serious injury intentionally (section 16); and the gross violence offences (sections 15A and 15B), which attach to conduct that was planned, carried out in company, or otherwise aggravated. “Injury” extends to harm to mental health; “serious injury” is separately defined. Alongside the injury offences sit threats to kill and to inflict serious injury, conduct endangering life or persons, and stalking.
Three features of the structure deserve attention. The first is the work done by the fault element. The physical act may be identical — a single punch — but whether the accused intended serious injury, was reckless as to injury, or neither, determines which offence is made out. Intention and recklessness are proved, not presumed, and they are where these trials are usually fought.
The second is the mandatory sentencing overlay. The gross violence offences carry statutory minimum non-parole periods for adults, and offences against emergency workers on duty attract mandatory custodial terms under the Sentencing Act 1991 unless narrow exceptions apply. Where a mandatory provision is engaged, the real contest happens earlier — at charge, at committal, and in negotiation over which offence the evidence actually supports.
The third is self-defence, which in Victoria is a true defence the prosecution must disprove once raised on the evidence. Whether it is open, and how it is raised, are questions of preparation rather than instinct.
The firm acts across this hierarchy, from summary assault to the gross violence offences and homicide. The earlier the engagement, the more of the structure remains in play.
