Attempt to Inflict Bodily Harm – an Offence Ignored by Judicial Practice

Authors:

Pages: 164-171
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54664/ITXK8799

Abstract:

The article examines the lack of judicial practice concerning offences under Articles 128, 129 and 130 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 18 (1) of the Criminal Code, as well as the reasons why cases involving attempted bodily harm do not reach the trial stage. The main argument is that in many cases the resulting harm is in immediate factual, medical, and legal proximity to a more serious, non-materialized result, toward which the perpetrator has also acted with direct — albeit indeterminate or alternative — intent. In such situations, an attempt at the more serious offence is present. Practical criteria are proposed for proving intent to cause more serious injury: the intensity and direction of the attack, the characteristics of the instrument used, the anatomical area affected and the proximity of the attack to vital structures, as well as the objective capacity of the act to cause more serious criminally relevant consequences. It is emphasized that expert reports should also assess the real risk of a more serious outcome. In conclusion, the article argues that the active application of the doctrine of attempt in cases of bodily harm is necessary for the proper implementation of criminal liability. De lege ferenda, it proposes a qualifying circumstance for assaults committed with a bladed weapon, by analogy with Section 224 of the German Criminal Code.

Keywords:

attempt, bodily harm, direct intent, alternative intent.

Download