Can foresight of risk of pain support inference of intention?

Federal Court: In SZTAL, the plurality of the HCA held that "the intent requirement in relation to significant harm will only be satisfied if the perpetrator has an “actual, subjective, intention” to cause pain or suffering and that “knowledge or foresight of a result is not to be equated with intent”". However, can it be said that "evidence of foresight of the risk of pain or suffering or humiliation may support an inference of intention and in some cases the degree of foresight may render the inference compelling"?

This Federal Court (FCA) decision includes the following passage:

22    In SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34 the Tribunal found that if the appellants were returned to Sri Lanka, their country of origin, and arrested and charged under the laws of that country because they had left it illegally, they would likely be held in remand for a short period. The Tribunal also accepted that prison conditions in Sri Lanka were poor and may not meet international standards by reason of matters such as overcrowding, poor sanitary facilities and limited access to food. It was argued that a Sri Lankan official, to whom knowledge of prison conditions could be imputed, could be said to intend to inflict severe pain or suffering on the appellants or intend to cause them extreme humiliation by sending them to prison because the official must be taken to be aware of the prison conditions. The plurality of the High Court held at [27] that the intent requirement in relation to significant harm will only be satisfied if the perpetrator has an “actual, subjective, intention” to cause pain or suffering and that “knowledge or foresight of a result is not to be equated with intent”...

However, can it be said that "evidence of foresight of the risk of pain or suffering or humiliation may support an inference of intention and in some cases the degree of foresight may render the inference compelling"?

The FCA answered that questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.

Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.

Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.

Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.

If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.

Previous articleMust written reasons under s 66 contain date and time?
Next articleTribunal required to record hearings?