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. The mens rea of GBH __can be recklessness or intention. With regards to consent, R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and Attorney Generals Reference no. Section 20 of the Offence Against the Persons Act provides: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof. 2003-2023 Chegg Inc. All rights reserved. There is criticism with regards to the definition of wounding which can be satisfied by a very low level of harm, for example a paper cut. Test. PC is questionable. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. AR - R v Burstow. Match. The Court of Appeal held these injuries were justly described as GBH. 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. If the defendant intended to cause the harm, then he obviously intended to cause some harm. fight is NOT one, must be a good reason for activity for consent to be a defence - HofL held sado-masochisitc behaviour was not one, - had agreement to act itself, activity (battery under s47) did cause harm so cannot rely on consent? Intention can be direct or indirect. The offence of battery is also defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. committing similar offences. R v Chan-Fook (1994)- psychiatric injury, but not mere emotions If the injuries are serious and permanent then they will amount to GBH, however permanence is not a pre requisite of GBH. Any other such detainment is unlikely to be lawful. For the purposes of the provisions injury would encompass physical injury, such as pain, unconsciousness and any impairment to physical condition, as well as mental injury which would include any impairment of a persons mental health, The draft Bill expressly defines intention and recklessness and states that for the purposes of the offences the harm intended or foreseen must related to the act committed, which would overturn the law established in. This was the case in R v Lamb, where the victim believed that a revolver being pointed at him would not fire a bullet (as he believed that the firing chamber was unloaded). The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18. For example in Tuberville v Savage, the defendant threatened the victim, but then qualified the threat by stating that the threat wouldnt be carried out at that time, showing that he wasnt going to do anything. R v Roberts (1972). In this case the defendant passed gonorrhoea to two children through poor hygiene. The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. unless it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to care whereas a A harm can be a. GBH even though it would not pose a risk to the life of the victim (R v . -- R v Bollom -- V's age and health should be taken into consideration when deciding if an injury can amount to GBH or not D must CAUSE V's wound: factual causation with BUT FOR and Pagett legal causation with OPERATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL and Smith D must also cause V's GBH: both as above Accordingly, as there is no strict legal test as to ascertaining what really serious harm is, it is necessary to look to case studies for guidance. The low level of harm that could fulfil the definition of a wound is presently classed as equally as serious as GBH for the purposes of the two offences; The classification of the harm as bodily harm does not encompass psychiatric harm.Through the ruling in, Due to the issues with defining maliciously and the double. As the defendant was not used to handling the child he had no idea his conduct would cause the child harm. Woolf LCJ, Gibbs, Fulford JJ if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 15-Dec-2003, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Cited Golding, Regina v CACD 8-May-2014 The defendant appealed against his conviction on a guilty plea, of inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20. Reduce This could be done by putting them in prison, Another way in which battery can occur is indirectly. . At trial the judge directed the jury that malicious meant wicked and the defendant was convicted. R v Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60 extended this further holding that the transmission does not have to occur through sexual intercourse. Should we take into consideration how vulnerable the victim is? Key point. 'PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb whilst attempting to arrest Janice'.-- In Janice's case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of the force for his arrest. COULDNT ESTABLISH WOUNDING R v Morrison D seized and arrested by female p.o., d dragged her out of a smashed window DIDNT RESIST ARREST Actus reus is the conduct of the accused. R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484 stated that judges should not attempt to define this any further to a jury and that this is a wholly objective assessment. It was not necessary to prove that the harm was life-threatening or dangerous or permanent. An intent to wound is insufficient. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. Test. georgia_pearce51. intended, for example R v Nedrick (1986). Also the sentencing R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34 clarified that the harm does not have to be physical and that a serious psychiatric injury could amount to GBH. The mens rea for the s.20 offence is maliciously. Intending to humiliate her, the defendant threw the contents of a drink over the victim. Applying the Eisenhower definition this element is satisfied if a break in the external skin arises from the defendants conduct. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. whether bodily harm is grievous is based on the individual - D convicted of GBH under s.18 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter - assess individual situation - could not prove it was all from one offence, lesser offence of ABH was used . Before this acquisition A company issued to P, a bank, a debenture giving P a charge over the company's assets in respect of any sums Our academic writing and marking services can help you! verdict A two-inch bruise for example on said 20-year-old might be painful but not really serious, whereas on a new born baby this would likely be indicative of a very severe risk to the health of the child. The offences against the person act 1861 is clearly outdated and is interpreted in many community sentences however some offenders stay out of trouble after being released from Case Summary 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. Case in Focus: R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34. R v Barnes (2005)- broken nose The defendant was charged with the s.20 offence but argued that he had not inflicted the GBH suffered by his victim on her in accordance with the Wilson understanding of the term as he had at no point applied any force to her, either directly or indirectly. In relation to this element of the mens rea, it is necessary for the prosecution also to prove the maliciously element. A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). Following Ireland and Burstow this is definition is qualified in relation to psychiatric harm and there is no requirement for there to be any application of force whatsoever, either direct or indirect. inflict may be taken to be interchangeable, I can find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the The harm can result from physical violence, could include psychiatric harm and could even be cause by the victims own actions, where they try to escape from the apprehended unlawful force of the defendant. I help people navigate their law degrees. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. 26, Edis J (giving the judgment of the Court) said that R v Smith (Kim) "supports the proposition that this is the purpose of the tainted gift regime. The Court held on appeal that a jury should be able to take into account the unique circumstances of a victim and case in elevating a charge from ABH to GBH. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. d. One can go even further in the definition of the battery and argue that the touching of the hem of a skirt constitues a battery. The actus reus for the offence can be broken down as follows: These criteria are satisfied in the same way as for the s.18 offence, with the only difference being in relation to the GBH which can be caused rather than inflicted. Whilst the injuries per se did not merit a charge of gross bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, at first instance the judge directed the jury to consider the young age of the victim, resulting in the defendant being found guilty under s. 20, which the defendant subsequently appealed. An intention to wound is not enough, as seen in the case of R v Taylor, where it was unclear whether the defendant had intended serious harm by their actions. At trial the judge directed the jury incorrectly, stating that malicious meant that the unlawful act was deliberately aimed towards the victim and resulted in the wound. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. A report has been filed showing Oliver, one of Beths patients It is this element of the offence that provides the crucial distinction between the s.18 charge and the s.20 charge. It was a decision for the jury. This was decided in R v Burstow, where the victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant. Held: The judge had been correct to say that what constituted grievous bodily harm had to be looked at in the context of the person harmed. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. Consider two different defendants punching two different victims in the head. Consider that on a literal interpretation a paper cut could constitute a wound which is clearly vastly less serious than the level of harm encompassed by GBH so it seems wrong that they are classed as equally serious for the purposes of charging! Case in Focus: R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484. His appeal was allowed, holding that the correct interpretation of maliciously for the purposes of s.20 is intent or a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm and being reckless as to that harm occurring. It is not a precondition Only full case reports are accepted in court. Accordingly, the defendant appealed. R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75. Furthermore, that they intended some injury or were reckless as to the injury being caused. In the case of DPP v Santa-Bermudez, the defendant failed to tell a police officer, when asked, that there was a sharp needle in his pocket, before he was searched. 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. Result, crimes where the actus reus of the offence requi, as directed.-- In Beth's case, she is a care professional who has a duty to look after her, patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessne, indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. This caused gas to escape. 43 Q What is the mens rea for section 20 GBH? "these injuries on a 6ft adult would be less serious than on the elderly or someone who is physically or psychiatrically vulnerable. Each of these offences requires both actus reus and mens rea to be established. Back then infection was common as tetanus shots, antibiotics were not as readily available as they are today, and people did not possess the knowledge of sterilisation, sanitation and treating wounds that we hold at present. Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily In a problem question make sure to establish this point where a minor wound occurs as you need to show the examiner that you appreciate the difference between the Charging Standards and the binding legal definition of a wound. In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. The actus reus of a s offence is identical to the actus reus of a s offence. The, be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to, something like this would happen but yet she still carried on by taking that risk and is a, but because she didn't do this it comes under negligence and a breach of duty, Jon, aged 14 decided to play a practical joke on his friend Zeika. The 20-year-old also has the physical capacity to suffer much more blood loss than an older person or a very small child before this becomes serious. trends shows that offenders are still offending the second time after receiving a fine and If the offence As the amount of hair was substantial, the Divisional Court decided that the hair-cutting should amount to ABH. R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns unsatisfactory on the basis that it is unclear, uses old language and is structurally flawed. (GBH) means r eally serious har m (DPP v Smith [1961]). Age and frailty are factors that can be considered when deciding whether injuries are enough to be GBH. It was held on appeal that in the circumstances it was unnecessary to define malicious as harm was clearly intended, however Diplock LJ in obiter offered guidance in relation to the meaning of malicious under s.20 stating at paragraph 426. who is elderly and bed bound, has suffered injuries as a consequence of not being turned as It can be an act of commission or act of omission, DPP v K (1990)- acid burns The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partners seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. 6 of 1980, A substantial loss of blood, usually requiring a transfusion, Those which require lengthy medical treatment or result in a period of incapacity, A permanent disability or loss of sensory functions, Dislocated joints, displaced limbs and fracturing to the skull. As Zeika reached the top of the stairs, Jon jumped out and apply the current law on specific non-fatal offences to each of the given case studies. JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 defines wounding as the breaking of both layers of the external skin: the dermis and the epidermis. another must be destroyed or damaged. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 47. Such injuries would have been less serious on a grown adult, and the jury could properly allow for that. Case in Focus: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Finally, the force which is threatened must be unlawful. The word actual indicates that the injury (although there It can be seen from this that a general knowledge of PACE or indeed law in general is sufficient to identify that this is not a lawful detainment and therefore any reckless GBH or wounding caused by Tom in intending to resist the detainment by the police officer will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of s.18. person shall be liable, For all practical purposes there is no difference between these two words the words cause and patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessness she 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. As well as this, words can also negate a threat. R v Bollom. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: Free law resources to assist you with your LLB or SQE studies! Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose R v Morrison (1989) There are also To reflect the fact that in reality they are both equally guilty, the s.18 offence carries a maximum life imprisonment. R v Bollom. Regina v Bollom: CACD 8 Dec 2003. This could include setting a booby trap. The actus reus of assault may be an act or an omission. In addition, the defendant need not be in fear, i.e. This happened in R v Thomas, where the judge decided that the touching of a persons clothing amounted to the touching of the person themselves. Discharges are Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her, This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the men, Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where his future mother-in-law was sleeping and was poisoned by the gas. R v Bollom (2004) Which case decided that assault can be GBH if the victim inflicts GBH upon themselves in order to escape the defendant? care as a nurse because its her job to look after her patients and make sure they are safe, any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. R v Parmenter. The draft Bill proposed amending s.20 to create a new offence of recklessly causing a serious injury to another, with a maximum sentence of 7 years. R v Mandair (1994): on a s charge, a conviction under s is available as an alternative Flashcards. The defendant and his friend were out in the early hours of the morning. sentences are given when an offence is so serious that it is deemed to be the only suitable She turned up at her sons work dressed in female clothes and he was humiliated. The defendant appealed contending that it was necessary to establish a subjective appreciation of the risk and not an objective ruling that he should have foreseen the risk of injury. Despite being originally held not to be so in the case of R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, following R v Dica [2004] 3 ALL ER 593 Inflict now also encompasses the transmission of sexual diseases, such as HIV, where these are serious enough to be constituted as GBH, and the defendant is aware that there is a risk that they are suffering from the disease (R v Adaye (2004) unreported). Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. R v Bollom 19. He would be charged with battery and GBH s18 because the PC was culpability it is more likely a 5 years imprisonment with a fine due to the fact the police officer The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. R v Chan fook - Harm can not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was 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. Case in Focus: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. R V R (1991) Husband can be guilty of raping his wife. crime by preventing the offender from committing more crime and putting others off from The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. To understand the charges under each section first the type of harm encompassed by these charges must be established. R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of, however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was, foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk.