-56-
at risk of harm. In the circumstances, when the Defence argued that the Defendant’s acts did not involve dangerous activities which seriously jeopardised public safety or security, that was an untenable argument on the facts as noted above.
157. We can only find from what occurred that day that it was certainly beyond a doubt that the Defendant was indulging in very dangerous activities jeopardising public safety in driving in the way he did.
158. Further, if one were to just focus on the collision, that is clear proof that the Defendant engaged in acts involving serious violence against persons. It needs no repeating that a motorcycle is potentially a lethal weapon. If a person deliberately steers a motorcycle in a manner which renders a collision with people inevitable, he is no doubt engaging in acts which involve serious violence against persons.
159. We accept the Prosecution’s submission that serious violence against persons does not mean serious injuries caused to the persons. It is the nature of the act embarked upon which is required to be proved. Whether such act results in or causes serious bodily injury is a matter relevant to sentence, not an element of the offence under Article 24 of the NSL.
160. Thus, even if we were only to consider the collision, we are sure that the Defendant’s act indeed involved serious violence against persons as set out under Article 24.
