1B.3.4 s18 OAPA 1861

Question 1

s18 OAPA 1861

Answer 1

s18 can be viewed as an offence where there would have been a charge of murder if the victim had died. As with s20, the act must be unlawful.

Question 2

Why is s18 a more serious offence than s20?

Answer 2

Section 18 is considered to be a much more serious offence than s20, as can be seen from the difference in maximum punishments.
- s20 = five years’ imprisonment
- s18 = life imprisonment

Question 3

Actus reus for s18 OAPA 1861

Answer 3

Can be committed in two ways:
- Wounding

or

• Causing GBH

(These are the same meanings as in s20).

Question 4

Mens rea for s18 OAPA 1861

Answer 4

This is a specific intent offence – recklessness is not enough for the mens rea of s18.
It must be proved that the defendant intended to:
- do some GBH

or

-resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of a person

Question 5

Intention as the mens rea for s18 OAPA 1861

Answer 5

Intention here carries the same meaning as for murder:

• As decided in Moloney (1985), foresight of consequence is not intention, it is only evidence from which intention can be inferred or found.
• Following on from the cases of** Nedrick (1986)** and Woollin (1998), intention cannot be found unless that harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant realised this was so.

It was held in the case of R v Taylor (2009) that an intention to wound is not enough for the mens rea of s18 OAPA 1861.

Question 6

R v Taylor (2009)

Answer 6

V was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound in the back. These were only surface scratches and photographs made it impossible to tell the depth of the wound. Held: An intention to wound is insufficient for the mens rea of s18 if it does not amount to GBH.

Question 7

Resisting arrest under s18 OAPA 1861

Answer 7

Where the defendant is resisting/preventing arrest/detention, the offence requires proof that:
- The defendant had specific intention to resist/prevent arrest

and

• The defendant was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound/injury.+

This was held in the case of R v Morrison (1989).

Question 8

R v Morrison (1989)

Answer 8

A police officer seized hold of the D and told him that she was arresting him. D dived through a window, dragging her with him, causing her face to be badly cut by the glass.
Held: the offence requires proof of a specific intent to prevent/resist arrest, but only reckless as to causing a wound or injury.