Grievous bodily harm (GBH) and Wounding are the most serious of the non-fatal offences against the person, charged under s.18 and s.20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The Court of Appeal referred the question to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. For a s18 wounding charge to be bought the defendant must have intended really serious harm. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd: 1978, Lamb v Camden London Borough Council: 1981, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. If the GBH or wound is caused when the defendant is intending to resist an unlawful arrest, then this will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of the offence. 2. In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of, amongst other things, the effect of the harm on the particular individual. With regards to s.18, the draft Bill proposed an offence of intentionally causing serious injury to another. Beth works at a nursing home. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. This is known as indirect or oblique intention. The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. Following the case law, it can be properly stated that the mens rea of maliciously is in other words, a foresight by the defendant of a risk of some harm occurring. Case in Focus: R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34. Biological GBH [Biological GBH] _is another aspect. Inflict for this purpose simply means cause. Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. (i) Intention to do some grievous bodily harm or (ii) with intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! Just because a defendant intends to avoid arrest this does not automatically mean that he intends harm or is subjectively reckless as to whether some harm will be caused. Battery occurs whena person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. The defendant caused bruising, abrasions and cuts to the baby's body which were claimed to be accidental, the D and V's mother blamed a third party. The positi, defendant's actions. To reflect the fact that in reality they are both equally guilty, the s.18 offence carries a maximum life imprisonment. However, following R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 the jury can find intention where although the result was not the exact desired consequence held by a defendant, it could be appreciated by the defendant himself that it was a virtually certain consequence of his act. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was R v Bollom (2014) 'In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on the individual. R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 . crimes where the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the conduct caused a crime. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. The officer cut her finger on the needle and the defendant was found by the court to be liable for battery, due to the omission. more and no less than really serious, It is not necessary that the harm should be either permanent or dangerous. Due to his injury, he may experience memory S.20 Offences Against The Persons Act - to unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any Grievous Bodily Harm without intent, A wounding is a break in all layers of the skin, There is no difference between serious and really serious harm, Accumulation of minor injury can amount to GBH, The court can take into consideration particular characteristics of the victim to decide whether the injuries amount to GBH, Psychiatric injury can amount to GBH - the woman was diagnosed with having a severe depressive illness, Possible to inflict biological GBH (by transmitting HIV or a similar STD, Foresight of some physical harm only is required, Did the D appreciate that there was some risk involved, Must foresee that some harm may be suffered, Only required to be foresight that some harm may occur, not that it would occur. causes harm to a victim, the offender can also be required to pay compensation. Microeconomics - Lecture notes First year. AR - R v Burstow. In-house law team. For the purposes of this element of the actus reus it must first be shown that the harm was grievous. The offence of battery is also defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. A report has been filed showing Oliver, one of Beths patients scared, they just have to hold the belief that violence will occur. The mere fact that the same injuries on a healthy adult would be less serious does not alter the fact that in determining the appropriate charge, due regard must be had for the actual harm suffered by the victim. As well as this, words can also negate a threat. For example, hitting them or pushing them would suffice but chasing them and causing them to run into a wall or fall into a pit would not. A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). Costco The Challenge Of Entering The Mainland China Market Case Study Solution & Analysis, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to take victim as you find them, bruising can be GBH. Significance of V's age. D must cause the GBH to the victim. After all, inflicting the same injuries to a strong and healthy 21 year old and a frail 90 year old will usually result in very different levels of harm and so the law should reflect this. Lord Roskill set out that GBH may be inflicted either where the defendant has directly and violently assaulted the victim, or where the defendant has inflicted it by intentionally doing an act which, although it is not in itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, it directly results in force being applied to the body of the victim, so that they suffer grievous bodily harm. Due to the age of the Act and numerous issues identified with the offences set out there is lots of discussion surrounding reform of the law in relation to the s.18 and s.20 offences. Such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. To prove the offence, it must be shown that the defendant wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm. The offence is indictable only which means it must be heard and sentenced at crown court. We grant these applications and deal with this matter as an appeal. The word actual indicates that the injury (although there The victim turned to the defendant and demanded to know where his friend had gone. This may be because it is impossible for the threat to be carried out. Flashcards. Reference this Obiter in R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 extended this further to suggest that there is no need for intention or recklessness as to causing GBH or wounding; mere intention or recklessness as to the causing of some physical harm, albeit it very minor harm, will suffice. The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. Judicial precedent is best understood as a practice of the courts and not as a set of binding rules. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. The victims characteristics, including his age, must be considered in deciding whether the harm caused constitutes actual bodily harm, D dropped his partners baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on Vs leg, V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how, D was convicted under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH), D appealed on the basis that Vs injuries did not amount to GBH as they had to be assessed without reference to Vs age and health, Appeal allowed the conviction was substituted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s47, Assessment of the harm had to be made on the basis of effect on the particular individual, The injuries need not be life-threatening, dangerous or permanent to constitute GBH, Injuries had to be viewed collectively to assess whether they were serious, Injuries had to be caused by one continuous course of conduct constituting a continuous assault, Although Vs age had to be taken into account when assessing his injuries, the judge failed to direct the jury to determine Ds responsibility in inflicting the injuries was uncertain, as such the conviction was unsafe. The word grievous is taken to mean serious. committing similar offences. This was then added to in R v Chan Fook, where the court decided that psychiatric injury could be classed as actual bodily harm, but that it must be not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. turn Oliver as directed. *You can also browse our support articles here >, Attorney Generals Reference no. R v Tierney (2009): on a s charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the The defendant was convicted under s.18 OAPA 1861 but it was left open for the jury to consider an offence under s.20. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. Once the level of harm has been quantified, it needs to be shown that the harm was inflicted by the defendant. R v Bollom. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75. Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose and get an apology. [3] [25-28]. health or comfort of V. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than This is shown in the case of, Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. If this is evidenced, then the actus reus for the s.20 offence is satisfied and it is not necessary to prove the GBH element in addition for a charge to be available as this is an alternative element. The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. They can include words, actions, or even silence! There was a lot of bad feeling the two women and the defendant was unhappy to see the her. There must be a cut to the whole of the skin so that the skin is no longer intact. The draft Bill actually sets out a definition of injury in order to provide clear and specific, legally binding guidance as to what this entails. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. For an essay question you may be asked whether you feel the two should be charged under the same offence given the difference in severity. The act i, unless done with a guilty mind. The defendant and his friend were out in the early hours of the morning. A fine and compensation-fines are the most common Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. We do not provide advice. Summary Week 1 Summary of the article "The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations" by Stephen Walt, Critically analyse and compare Plato and Aristotles concept of the body and soul, 3 Phase Systems Tutorial No 1 Solutions v1 PDF, Pdf-order-block-smart-money-concepts compress, 04a Practice papers set 2 - Paper 1H - Solutions, Faktor-faktor yang mengakibatkan peristiwa 13 Mei 1969.