Law; Criminal law; A2/A-level; OCR; Created by: 10dhall; Created on: 15-06-17 21:14; What happened in this case? (i) Intention to do some grievous bodily harm or (ii) with intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. Each of these offences requires both actus reus and mens rea to be established. 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. 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. Once the level of harm has been quantified, it needs to be shown that the harm was inflicted by the defendant. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was . Discharges are Whether a jury may consider a victims particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. He would be charged with battery and GBH s18 because the PC was 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. The intention element of the mens rea is important in relation to where a wound occurs as it shows causing a wound with intention merely to wound as per the Eisenhower definition will not suffice. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. 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? a 17 month old baby had bruising to her abdomen both arms and left legs d charged with s18 gbh. Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. Until then, there was no unlawful force applied. Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. 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 . 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. In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. We do not provide advice. not getting arrested and therefore pushed the PC over. Intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. Also, this words convey in their ordinary meaning. 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. To reflect the fact that in reality they are both equally guilty, the s.18 offence carries a maximum life imprisonment. harm shall be liable Any assault subjective, not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the Flashcards. Match. Result PC is questionable. 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. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. Answering a homicide question in terms of s.18 and s.20 offences is an easy way to lose marks in an exam and one which can be avoided! Or can be reckless if high risk and consent is not sought for that risk R v Konzani 2005 Microeconomics - Lecture notes First year. This can be established by applying the objective test and surrounding case law to assess whether the harm is really serious as per the Smith definition. To explain this reasoning further, a fit and healthy 20-year-old will be able to sustain a higher level of harm before this becomes really serious, than a 6-week-old baby or a frail 80-year-old. The word actual indicates that the injury (although there the two is the mens rea required. The defendant was out in the pub when she saw her husbands ex-girlfriend. Beth works at a nursing home. 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 R v Roberts (1972). Finally, a battery can also be caused by an omission. something like this would happen but yet she still carried on by taking that risk and is a ABH In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. 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. 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. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. For example, punching someone in the face, intending to break their nose. In upholding his conviction Fulford J stated at paragraph 52 To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. If the injuries are serious and permanent then they will amount to GBH, however permanence is not a pre requisite of GBH. 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. times. The actus reus of assault may be an act or an omission. but because she didn't do this it comes under negligence and a breach of duty. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! The defendant felt threatened by the demands and knocked the victim to the floor, repeatedly punching him in the face. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. such as discharge-this is when the court decides someone is guilty of an offence, but Therefore the maximum sentence for ABH s47 is 5 years of imprisonment. foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. Furthermore, loss of consciousness, even for a moment, can be argued to be actual bodily harm, as illustrated by T v DPP. R v Bollom. Dica (2005) D convicted of . R v Tierney (2009): on a s charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative The answer heavily relies on the implied sporting consent principle. Temporary injuries can be sufficient. This definition may seem surprising as it does not follow the usual understanding of wound which implies a more serious level of harm than a mere split in the skin, for which a pin prick could qualify. 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. And lastly make the offender give The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partners seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. 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. I help people navigate their law degrees. In the Burstow case, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm for harassing a women . There is confusing terminology, especially with regards to maliciously and inflict. The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one. As with the proposed s.20 offence, any reference to wounding or bodily harm is removed. The Court explained inflict merely required force being applied to the body of the victim causing them to suffer GBH. Test. The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb The actus reus of a s offence is identical to the actus reus of a s offence. Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. This is well illustrated by DPP v Smith, where the defendant cut off the victims pony tail and some hair from the top of her head without her consent. Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments. 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. Q1 - Write a summary about your future Higher Education studies by answering the following questions. Battery occurs whena person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways. It wasnt until the defendant decided to leave the car there that the battery occurred. ways that may not be fair. DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 explained that GBH should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, that is really serious harm. 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. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. Grievous bodily harm/Wounding is also defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. not necessary for us to set out why that was so because the statutory language is clear. In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. . In this case the defendant passed gonorrhoea to two children through poor hygiene. Case Summary Focusing on the facts of Mr Burstows case, the defendant had become obsessed with a woman and began stalking her, carrying out random acts such as damaging her car and breaking into her home, stealing her clothes, throwing condoms all over her garden, subjecting her to silent phone calls and sending hate mail. scared, they just have to hold the belief that violence will occur. A Balancing Conflicting Interests Between Human Rights. In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. Reform and rehabilitate offenders by changing an offenders He suffered genital herpes, but had unprotected sex and acknowledged acting recklessly. As Zeika reached the top of the stairs, Jon jumped out and 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. The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. Although his intentions were not voluntary act and omission is that it does not make an individual liable for a criminal act It was sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm would result. The Court of Appeal held these injuries were justly described as GBH. 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. that V should require treatment or that the harm should have lasting consequences ultimately, the Learn. intended, for example R v Nedrick (1986). For instance, there is no Tom is walking down the street and a police officer grabs him, handcuffs him and tries to force him into the back of a police car. The offence is indictable only which means it must be heard and sentenced at crown court. 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. The act itself does not constitute guilt Theyre usually given for less serious crimes. verdict All of the usual defences are available in relation to a charge of GBH. R v Ratnasabapathy (2009)- brain damage This was affirmed in the case of R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 which considered the meaning of maliciously specifically in relation to the s.20 offence. any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent Beths statement indicates that she couldnt be bothered to turn Oliver Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! This was decided in the case of __DPP __v Smith, where the level of injury was said to be really serious harm. For example, the actus reus of the offence of criminal damage is that property belonging to Subjective recklessness is that a defendant must 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. There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. Reduce 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. The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. For the purposes of intention to cause GBH the maliciously element of the mens rea imposes no further requirement. Such injuries would have been less serious on a grown adult, and the jury could properly allow for that. Tragically he caused serious injuries to the bone structures in the limbs of his infant son and, as a result of the heavy way he had handled him, and he was convicted on four counts of causing GBH under s.20. Facts. The defendants, Luff Development Ltd, acquired a site that would be suitable for developing property on. 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 . GBH = serious psychiatric injury. Learn. As the defendant was not used to handling the child he had no idea his conduct would cause the child harm. Golding v REGINA Introduction 1. D must cause the GBH to the victim. In this case the defendants father had undergone gender reassignment treatment to become a woman. behaviour to prevent future crime for example by requiring an offender to have treatment for The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. Sometimes it is possible that an assault can be negated. Case in Focus: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. However, a cut could theoretically suffice where the greater level of harm was the intention. 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. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. To understand the charges under each section first the type of harm encompassed by these charges must be established. 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! top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily. A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). The act i, unless done with a guilty mind. The offence of assault is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. The statutory policy is to apply pressure to those who have dissipated (or more usually laundered) their assets during a . The normal rules of causation apply to determine whether ABH to V was occasioned by Ds assault. The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. Looking to the enactment year of the Offences Against the Persons Act, which was back in 1861, provides some explanation as to why the two are treated with the same severity. Due to the requirement for the arrest to be lawful it is necessary to have some knowledge of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 as to when an arrest will be lawful, however for examination purposes the examiner is not testing your knowledge of the Act and will make it easy for you. She turned up at her sons work dressed in female clothes and he was humiliated. This makes it clear that for the purposes of a s.18 offence indirect harm will definitely suffice. R v Hill (2015)- broken cheekbone, Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause GBH to The main issues with the current law can be identified as follows: This is another hot topic for an essay question on these offences. At trial the judge directed the jury that malicious meant wicked and the defendant was convicted. In-house law team. who is elderly and bed bound, has suffered injuries as a consequence of not being turned as crime by preventing the offender from committing more crime and putting others off from This caused gas to escape. Age and frailty are factors that can be considered when deciding whether injuries are enough to be GBH. 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. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. After work the defendant and his cousin went over to his fathers house and attacked her, breaking her nose, knocking out three teeth, causing a laceration over the one eye, a concussion and heavy bruising.