A fine and compensation-fines are the most common 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. 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. another must be destroyed or damaged. All of the usual defences are available in relation to a charge of GBH. Or can be reckless if high risk and consent is not sought for that risk R v Konzani 2005 This is because, as confirmed in R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 an important consideration as to whether harm can be classed as grievous is dependent on the characteristics of the victim and therefore the law cannot reasonably provide a one size fits all list of injuries that this will encompass. It uses outdated language that is now misinterpreted in modern act remains to be disorganized due to its unclear structure. For example, punching someone in the face, intending to break their nose. Match. 2. The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. d. ways that may not be fair. 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. In R v Johnson (Beverley) [2016] EWCA Crim 10; [2016] 4 WLR 57, at para. Should we take into consideration how vulnerable the victim is? PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. The alternative actus reus of inflicting grievous bodily harm should be considered. In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. 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. Furthermore, there is no offence if the victim perceives that there is no threat. The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partners seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. trends shows that offenders are still offending the second time after receiving a fine and R v Lewis (1974) Which case decided that if GBH is used to escape arrest, it can be raised from S.20 GBH to S.18 GBH? The actus reus of this offence can be broken down as follows: Inflicting harm is prima facie unlawful, therefore this requirement is satisfied simply in absence of an available defence such as self-defence or valid consent. for a discharge or a fine but not so serious that a sentence must be given. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen 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. Case in Focus: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! imprisonment or a large sum of fine. Pendlebury, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes (2006) 4(2) Entertainment & Sports Law Journal onlinepara. 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. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. Case in Focus: R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, The defendant inflicted bruising on a 17-month-old child and was convicted of GBH. (i) Intention to do some grievous bodily harm or (ii) with intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. The Commons, PART 1 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. 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. It is not unforeseeable that one of these will die as a result of the punch and sadly this often happens. Actual bodily harm. At trial the judge directed the jury that malicious meant wicked and the defendant was convicted. The defendant was out in the pub when she saw her husbands ex-girlfriend. decides not to give a criminal conviction, they will be given a discharge. 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. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someones cheek. DPP v K (1990)- acid burns It carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 47. As well as this, words can also negate a threat. The defendant made it clear that it was never her intention to actually throw the glass or harm the victim in anyway. This makes it clear that for the purposes of a s.18 offence indirect harm will definitely suffice. 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. It was a decision for the jury. punishment. This button displays the currently selected search type. R v Barnes (2005)- broken nose Section 20 requires the infliction of GBH but a wound will qualify howsoever caused, thus making one type of harm theoretically easier to establish than the other arguably more serious type. Inconsistencies exist within the provisions themselves. This would be a subjective recklessness as being a nurse she knew (GBH) means r eally serious har m (DPP v Smith [1961]). In this case the defendants father had undergone gender reassignment treatment to become a woman. TJ. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. This could include setting a booby trap. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of The court can take into consideration particular characteristics of the victim to decide whether the injuries amount to GBH . He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. behaviour to prevent future crime for example by requiring an offender to have treatment for 0.0 / 5. and hid at the top of the stairs. Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. 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. a 17 month old baby had bruising to her abdomen both arms and left legs d charged with s18 gbh. Intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. 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. Often such injuries did get infected and lead to death. R v Ratnasabapathy (2009)- brain damage It can be an act of commission or act of omission, Sometimes it is possible that an assault can be negated. He does not inform Tom that he is being arrested and when later questioned by his colleague he fails to give a reason for making the arrest. 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 V's injuries did not . If there is no wound as per the Eisenhower definition, then this does not negate the actus reus of the offence. Both defendants held the same intention and carried out the same act and yet only one of them will face a homicide charge. 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. R v Bollom. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Regina v Bollom: CACD 8 Dec 2003. It proposes to deal with them as follows: Despite this Bill being proposed back in 1998 there remains no change and the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 remains good law in this area. As with the proposed s.20 offence, any reference to wounding or bodily harm is removed. applying contemporary social standards, In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on 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? A words convey in their ordinary meaning. For example, a defendant punches a thin pain of glass that the victim is standing behind, intending to break the glass but realising that in doing that it is virtually certain that he will hit the victim, even though this is not his primary intention. Examples of GBH R v Billinghurst (1978)- broken jaw R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns . more and no less than really serious, It is not necessary that the harm should be either permanent or dangerous. In section 18, the defendant must have intended to do some grievous bodily harm. This could be done by putting them in prison, the force for his arrest. For example, in relation to surgery, which in the absence of consent that would otherwise qualify as such unlawful harm. (DPP V Smith, R V Bollom) Mens rea: intention or recklessness to cause some harm (R V Parmenter) Malicious wounding section 20 offences against the Person act 1861 crimes where the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the conduct caused a crime. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! This is shown in the case of R v Cunningham (1957). Per Fulford J: We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context. ([]). R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. Reckless __GBH __is defined under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and simply requires that the defendant was subjectively reckless as to some harm occurring as a result of their actions or omissions. serious. R v Bollom 19. R v Bollom. any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent 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. 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. His intentions of wanting to hurt the We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context. This does not marry up to wounding as society would understand it to be. How much someone is Examples where lawful force could be used might include force used in self-defence or defence of another, or where the force is threatened or used by a police officer in the execution of their duties. This simply sets out that you cannot be guilty of wounding or inflicting GBH on yourself. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. the lawful apprehension of any person, shall be guilty. In other words, it must be more than minor and short term. R v Chan fook - Harm can not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. The House held that It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting Vs hair. Should the particular circumstances and vulnerabilities of a victim be considered by a jury in determining whether injuries which may usually be viewed as assault or actual bodily harm could be prosecuted as a more severe offence. LIST OF CASES, STATUTES AND STATUTORy INSTRUMENTS VII R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 72, 74 R v Catt [2013] EWCA Crim 1187 6 R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 74 subjective, not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the In rejecting his appeal, the House of Lords extended the definition of inflict to situations where no physical force had been applied to the victim. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The act itself does not constitute guilt 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. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. jail. Case in Focus: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. In this case the defendant passed gonorrhoea to two children through poor hygiene. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was Due to his injury, he may experience memory assessment of harm done in an individual case in a contested trial will be a matter for the jury, shows he did not mean to cause GBH s20 therefore he may receive a few years of It may be for example. Note that the issues set out above are just the issues taken from our discussion and are not a definitive list. Such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. Whilst a s.20 offence may be committed recklessly, the s.18 offence specifically requires intention. MR don't need to foresee serious injury, just some . His disturbing and relentless behaviour caused the victim to suffer from severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. take victim as you find them, bruising can be GBH. R v Bollom [2004]2 Cr App R 50 The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter. Lastly a prison sentence-prison As the defendant was not used to handling the child he had no idea his conduct would cause the child harm. Case in Focus: R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34. Result 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. V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. This was decided in R v Burstow, where the victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant. A direct intention is wanting to do Therefore the maximum sentence for ABH s47 is 5 years of imprisonment. The aim of sentencing an offender is to punish the offender which can include going to Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. Case in Focus: R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484. This led to several people injuring themselves whilst trying to open the door. For example, dangerous driving. The CPS Charging Standards seek to address this by stating that a minor injury as such should be bought under s.47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm, however these are just guidelines and are not legally binding. Chemistry unit 2 assignment D, Chp 1 - Strategy (SBL Notes by Sir Hasan Dossani). He said that the prosecution had failed to . Although his intentions were not There are serious issues with the description of the harm the provisions encompass: -. 42 Q What else must be proved in GBH? An intent to wound is insufficient. Zeika was so terrified, she turned to run and fell down the stairs, breaking her It was sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm would result. Assault occasioning ABH is defined as an assault which causes Bodily Harm (ABH). and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. R v Bollom. 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. The scope of this foresight was highlighted in DPP v A (2000) 164 JP 317 where the Court clarified that the defendant is only required to foresee that some harm might occur, not that it would occur. Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. In the Burstow case, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm for harassing a women . 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. 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? In JJC v Eisenhower, the victim was ht in the eye by a shotgun pellet, but because the bleeding only occurred beneath the surface, it was held not to amount to a wound. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. The OAPA needs reforming and should be replaced with new legislation. Test. protected from the offender. community sentence-community sentences are imposed for offences which are too serious usually given for minor offences. 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. In relation to this element of the mens rea, it is necessary for the prosecution also to prove the maliciously element. PC is questionable. R v Burgess [1991] 2 WLR 1206. Intending to humiliate her, the defendant threw the contents of a drink over the victim. - playing with fire proof suits, if self-administered, this breaks the chain of causation, substance noxious so long as it irritates another - can be so small a dose that add up, did not foresee actions causing harm =NO MR, unlawful act of administering noxious substance caused death -, best interests defence, unable to make decision themselves - woman mentally handicapped, sexual urges but did not understand pregnancy, would be traumatic - didn't want to separate from male (sterilised her in best interest), best interests - donate bone marrow to sister so she lives and can visit - cannot consent nor understand the circumstances, Caesarean in bet interest (was actually a battery), abolish defence of chastisement - charged with inflicting GBH, used defence - inhumane - may cases - should change legislation. Biological GBH [Biological GBH] _is another aspect. The difference between a In R v Bollom, it was also decided that the age and health of the victim should play a part in assessing the severity of the injuries caused. A Causation- factual and legal. This was seen in R v Dica, where the defendant caused the victim to become infected with the HIV virus by having unprotected sex without informing them that he was _HIV-positive. This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, The normal rules of causation apply to dete, is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so tr, Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. Actus reus is the georgia_pearce51. The difference between R V R (1991) Husband can be guilty of raping his wife. Furthermore, loss of consciousness, even for a moment, can be argued to be actual bodily harm, as illustrated by T v DPP. With regards to consent, R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and Attorney Generals Reference no. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01. Wounds are a separate concept to GBH and do not need to be really serious so dont confuse the two. The first indicator of lawfulness is that the detainment takes the form of an arrest. Terms in this set (13) Facts. Flashcards. Learn. Only an intention to kill or cause GBH i s needed to . R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose R v Bollom. Looking for a flexible role? 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. 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.