Sources used in this document:

Although Perry could be charged with a count of attempted murder, but the courts are likely to be highly critical of such a charge absent clear evidence that an intention to kill was held by the defendant. Section 6(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 applies when possible alternative verdicts may be available to a jury in addition to -- or other than -- an allegation of attempted murder. The trial judge at the Court of Appeal has been known to let the jury determine an alternative count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent[footnoteRef:9]. The rationale was that the defendant could not intend to kill the victim absent the intent to also cause grievous bodily harm. [9: R. v. Morrison [2003] 1 W.L.R.1859.]

Perry exhibited a strong emotional response to the anticipated kidnapping of his daughter by his wife. As such, distress or fear or panic can establish the psychological harm that results in assault with bodily harm. If Perry were to assert that psychiatric injury is the basis for the assault with bodily harm, this would need to be admitted by the defence and it should also entail evidence to that fact submitted by an expert that is called by the prosecution[footnoteRef:10]. [10: R. v Chan-Fook 99 Cr. App. R. 147, CA.]

In summary, Perry's assault on his wife, Naomi, in front of his child and his brother, was an impulsive act driven by his acute psychological state, the catalyst of which was anticipated loss of contact with his daughter in the foreseeable future. Moreover, Naomi died as a direct result of her family's decision to remove her feeding tube, despite the fact that she was breathing on her own. Perry is most likely to be charged with aggregated assault, and has a reasonably good chance of defence.