Is photographic evidence alone sufficient to prove “wounding” in criminal cases, or is expert medical testimony always necessary?
The Legal Definition of Wounding
The definition of “wounding” in criminal law has long been established. As Lord Lyndhurst stated in 1834, a wound in criminal cases is “an injury to the person, by which the skin is broken. If the skin is broken, and there was a bleeding, that is a wound.”
The Photographic Evidence Dilemma
A magistrate reportedly convicted a defendant of wounding based solely on photographic evidence, without expert medical evidence. This raises several questions:
- Can a photograph definitively show that both the dermis and epidermis have been broken?
- Is visible bleeding in a photograph sufficient to infer that both layers of skin have been breached?
- Does the court require expert medical explanation to interpret such evidence?
Case Law Insights
The case of Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56 provides some guidance. Justice Windeyer stated that if there is a breaking of the skin and it is bleeding freely, this establishes a wound. This suggests that clear photographic evidence showing skin separation and bleeding might be sufficient without expert evidence.
Conclusion
While case law suggests that clear photographic evidence of skin breakage and bleeding might suffice to prove wounding, the safest approach by the Police is for them to secure expert medical evidence. However, they sometimes take short cuts.
However, in 1834 I doubt they had DSLR 34 megapixel cameras – as as technoology imrpoves, one might see more HD photographic evidence used.
Remember, each case is unique, and the specific circumstances will always play a crucial role in determining the best approach. When in doubt, seeking the opinion of a medical expert can provide the clarity and confidence needed to effectively represent your client’s interests. And particuarly where the Police don’t call evidence, if there is defence expert opinion to say it’s not a wound, or cannot be told from the photo — then the magistrate wouldn’t be able to convict on this element of the charge.