When Do Injuries Become Grievous Bodily Harm in Western Australia Law

In Western Australia the Criminal Code sets two clear levels of injury.

Bodily harm covers cuts, bruises and other hurts that interfere with health or comfort but normally mend. Grievous bodily harm covers wounds that endanger life or are likely to cause permanent damage, such as a punctured lung or a badly broken bone.

Because the stakes are so much higher, a conviction for GBH can lead to sentences roughly twice as long as those for ordinary bodily harm.

 

Key Definitions and Differences Bodily Harm vs GBH in WA Law

Term	Exact wording in the Criminal Code (WA)	Plain-English meaning	Practical example
Bodily harm	“any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort”	Any hurt that makes a person feel pain or unwell, even if the effect is temporary.	A deep cut or severe bruise that heals in a few weeks.
Grievous bodily harm	“any bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, life, or to cause, or be likely to cause, permanent injury to health”	A very serious injury that puts life at risk or is likely to result in long-term or permanent damage.	A stab wound that punctures a lung, a badly broken jaw, or loss of sight in one eye.

 

In addition, GBH offences expose an accused to roughly double (or more) the maximum term of imprisonment compared with bodily-harm offences.

 

When Does Bodily Injury Become Grievous Bodily Harm?

Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) sets the dividing line. An injury that interferes with health or comfort is bodily harm (s 1); it crosses into grievous bodily harm as soon as it endangers life or is *likely to cause permanent injury to health (s 1). In practical terms, police, prosecutors and the court look at:

• Medical risk – damage to vital organs, heavy blood loss or any wound that could quickly become fatal without treatment.
• Long-term outcome – fractures needing surgery, deep burns, nerve damage, disfigurement, loss of sight or hearing, or the transmission of a serious disease.
• Medical opinion – doctors’ reports on prognosis, likely complications and expected recovery time.
• Weapon or force used – knives, machetes, firearms or blunt-force trauma aimed at the head or torso often suggest a danger to life.
• Actual recovery – if an injury first thought minor turns out to leave lasting impairment, a charge can be upgraded.

Once the facts show an injury has crossed that threshold, the charge moves from Assault occasioning bodily harm (s 317, maximum 5 or 7 years) to Doing grievous bodily harm (s 297, maximum 10 or 14 years) or, where there was an intention to cause such harm, Act intended to cause grievous bodily harm (s 294, maximum 20 years). The higher penalty reflects the far greater risk to the victim’s life and long-term health.

 

Example Case for the Crime of Grievous Bodily Harm – Houghton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 20; (2004) 144 A Crim R 343

Application of ss 1(1), 1(4)(c) & 297 – Bodily Harm vs Grievous Bodily Harm under the Criminal Code (WA)

This appeal clarifies that transmitting HIV constitutes grievous bodily harm (GBH) because the infection is “likely to cause permanent injury to health”, while temporary, non-endangering injuries remain mere bodily harm [16]–[18] cite Houghton [2004] WASCA 20.

Background

• Charge – Houghton was convicted of unlawfully doing GBH, contrary to s 297, by infecting the complainant with HIV between June and September 1999 [1]–[5].
• Defence argument – He said he honestly believed withdrawal before ejaculation made intercourse “safe”, so he lacked criminal intent [4]–[5], [62]–[64].
• Key context
  • Houghton had known he was HIV-positive since 1990 and had received condom-use counselling [4].
  • He never disclosed his status; the couple had unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse [2]–[5].
  • Expert evidence: HIV immediately infects T-cells and, in most cases, progresses; even symptom-free carriers remain permanently infected [10]–[15].

Court’s Findings

1. Bodily injury element – Infection that destroys immune cells is a “bodily injury” [11].
2. GBH threshold met – Such injury is likely to cause permanent harm; therefore it is GBH, not bodily harm [16]–[18].
3. Statutory shortcut – s 1(4)(c) deems causing a “serious disease” GBH; HIV fits that definition [8].
4. No need for overt symptoms – GBH is judged on probable consequences, not current illness [15]–[18].
5. Mistake-of-fact issue – An honest and reasonable mistake (s 24) goes to liability but does not re-label the harm as mere bodily harm [63].

Legal Principles Highlighted

• Bodily harm vs GBH – Bodily harm = temporary discomfort; GBH = injury likely to endanger life or cause permanent damage [16].
• Microscopic damage counts – Cell-level destruction satisfies “bodily injury”; visible wounds are unnecessary [11].
• Serious-disease deeming rule – Once infection with a “serious disease” is proved, GBH is automatically established [8].
• Onus of proof – Crown must negate any honest-and-reasonable mistake; mistake does not downgrade GBH to bodily harm [63].

Significance of the Case

Houghton [2004] WASCA 20 draws a bright line between bodily harm and GBH: permanent or life-endangering consequences (e.g. HIV, hepatitis B/C) are GBH; transient injuries are bodily harm. The ruling guides charging decisions under s 297, supports heavier sentencing for disease transmission, and underscores that undisclosed unsafe sex while HIV-positive attracts GBH liability.

 

Conclusion

Understanding the legal line between bodily harm and grievous bodily harm is vital:

• Bodily harm is any injury that interferes with health or comfort (s 1). It is most often charged as assault occasioning bodily harm with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, or seven years if circumstances of aggravation are proved (s 317).
• Grievous bodily harm is an injury that endangers life or is likely to cause permanent damage (s 1). Causing GBH attracts up to ten years’ imprisonment, or fourteen years if aggravated (s 297), while intentionally inflicting it can bring twenty years (s 294).

Because the difference can double the sentencing range, medical evidence, intent, and lasting impact all receive close scrutiny from police, prosecutors, and the courts. If you are accused of any violence offence under the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), seek experienced legal advice immediately. Getting the right advice early can determine whether an allegation stays at the bodily-harm level or escalates to a charge carrying far heavier penalties.