Video shows Anning striking the teen who egged him

Much to social media’s delight, a teen has egged Fraser Anning. However, with video footage clearly showing the Senator striking the teen afterwards, should Anning now be charged with assault?



Much to the joy of social media, karma has visited the scalp of Fraser Anning in the form of a raw egg, as one teen took it upon himself to echo the national sentiment.




Considering that the teen was carted off by the police, I believe that we might have the situation scrambled, as video footage clearly shows Fraser Anning throwing punches at the teen, with at least two blows seemingly striking the teen.



So, is it assault? To be confirmed as assault, a series of conditions must be met. According to Section 61 of the Crimes Act (1900), there are four elements which constitute it:

    1. A striking, touching or application of force by the accused to another person (the complainant).
    2. That such conduct of the accused was without the consent of the complainant.
    3. That such conduct was intentional or reckless in the sense that the accused realised that the complainant might be subject to immediate and unlawful violence, however slight as a result of what he or she was about to do, but yet took the risk that that might happen.
    4. That such conduct be without lawful excuse.

Anning fits the first three, but the last condition is questionable. He could also invoke self-defence (Section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900), which is outlined as: “…a defence to the charge if the person believes that their actions were necessary to defend either themselves or another person, or to prevent or stop the unlawful deprivation of their liberty or that of another, or to protect property from being taken, destroyed or damaged unlawfully, or to prevent or stop a criminal trespass. The action they take must be a reasonable response in the circumstances as they understand them. If self-defence is raised as a defence to a charge of assault, then it is up to the prosecution to prove that the person was not acting in self-defence by proving that they did not genuinely believe that it was necessary to do what they did, or that what they did was not reasonable in response to the danger as they understood it.”




Share via