In R v. Mowatt, what was the accused charged with after retaliating during a robbery?

In the case of R v. Mowatt, the accused was involved in a situation where he retaliated against an initial aggressor during a robbery, leading to a significant injury. The charge of wounding with intent is appropriate because the legal standard for this offense typically requires proof that the accused intended to cause serious injury to another person. Mowatt's actions were characterized as a direct response to his circumstances, and the court had to scrutinize whether there was intent to inflict injury or if the response was simply a reflexive reaction to the robbery itself.

The distinction here is crucial because wounding with intent focuses specifically on the mental state of the accused—whether he had the subjective intention to cause that harm, as opposed to other charges that may focus on different elements, such as the outcome of the act (e.g., murder) or the means used (assault with a deadly weapon). The context of the accused's conduct during the robbery plays a vital role in determining the appropriateness of the wounding charge.

Other potential charges like murder or robbery do not align as closely with the action of retaliatory wounding. Murder would require a level of intent to kill, which was not necessarily present in Mowatt's case. Similarly, while robbery