Chapter 12: Non-fatal Offences - Section 20 OAPA 1861

Question 1

What are the 5 offences of non-fatal offences?

Answer 1

1. Grievous bodily harm (serious)
2. Grievous bodily harm (normal)
3. Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
4. Battery
5. Assault

Question 2

What are the respective statutes for each offence?

Answer 2

Grievous bodily harm (serious)

• Section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

Grievous bodily harm (normal)

• Section 20 OAPA 1861

Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)

• Section 48 OAPA 1861

Battery

• Section 39 CJA 1988

Assault

• Section 39 CJA 1988

Question 3

What is the grievous bodily harm (normal)?

Answer 3

“Whoever shall (1) unlawfully and (2) maliciously (3) wound or (4) inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence triable either way and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Question 4

What type of offence is GBH (normal)?

Answer 4

Triable either way offence - judge must tell the D that -

1. D loses his peers
2. If he chooses Magistrates’ Court, judge would be able to send the case to higher court to trial

• If judge fails to do either of these, then a retrial is held

note - there are 3 types of offences (summary/indictable/traible either way)

Question 5

What is the statute for GBH (normal)? What are the 2 parts/types of GBH in this Act?

Answer 5

Section 20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

1. Unlawfully and maliciously wounding; or
2. Unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm

Question 6

What is the sentencing for GBH (normal)

Answer 6

5 years imprisonment

Question 7

What are the 4 elements of GBH (normal)?

Answer 7

AR

1. Unlawful
2. Proving either “wound” or “infliction” of GBH
3. Grievous bodily harm (GBH)

MR

1. Maliciously

Question 8

What is a “wound” to provingeither “wound” or “infliction” of GBH? What is the case that states this?

Answer 8

When an injury breaks the whole skin (external skin)
1. It must show blood, breaking all 3 layers of the skin
2. There must be breakage in the skin (R v Smith)

2nd element

Question 9

What is the case shows a “wound” must show blood?

Answer 9

Moriaty v Brooks [1834]

Facts

1. Plaintiff was cut under the eye
2. Bled

Held - Lord Lyndhurst

1. “The definition of a wound in criminal cases is an injury to the person by which the skin is broken. If the skin is broken, and there was bleeding, that is a wound”

Question 10

What are the 2 cases that state what a “wound” is not?

Answer 10

• R v McLoughlin [1938]
• C (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984]
• R v Wood - collar bone broken

Question 11

R v McLoughlin [1938]

What is NOT a “wound”

Answer 11

Held

• Abrasion does not amount to a “wound”
• The skin must be broken

Question 12

C (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984]

Answer 12

Facts

1. D, aged 15, was involved in an accident where V was hit by air gun pellet near his eye
2. D charged with unlawfully & maliciously wounding C contrary to Section 20 OAPA 1861

Held

1. Rupture of internal blood vessels was not sufficient to constitute a would for the purposes of Section 20 OAPA 1861
2. D was not convicted

Question 13

What are the 2 types of “inflict” when proving either “wound” or “infliction” of GBH? What are the cases?

2nd element

Answer 13

1) Direct infliction of force

2) Indirect infliction of force (medium)

• Haystead v CC of Derbyshire [2000]
• R v Martin
• DPP v K

Same as battery (Section 39 CJA 1988)

Question 14

What is grievous bodily harm?

Answer 14

Very serious, not necessary that harm should be permanent/dangerous

• So long as seriously interfering with comfort or health, it is sufficient

Question 15

What are the 3 cases for GBH?

3rd element

Answer 15

R v Ashman [1858]

• According to R v Saunders, the expression is apt to include such injuries and fractures, injuries to any organ and disfiguring and incapacitating injuries

DPP v Smith [1961]

• GBH was defined by HOL as “really serious bodily harm”

R v Saunders [1985] & Janjua and Choudhury [1999]

• Said it was not necessary that the word “really” comes before “serious bodily harm”

History

Question 16

Can “bodily harm” be mental/psychiatric injury? What 2 cases state this?

Answer 16

R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]

• “Bodily harm” can be interpreted into mental/psychiatric injury as well

R v Chan Fook

• Can be interpreted as mental harm as well

Question 17

What is an important thing to note about the MR of GBH (normal)?

Answer 17

The MR of which the D intended (wound or inflict GBH) can be interchanged

• E.g. Intended to “wound”, but ended up inflicting GBH

Doesn’t matter which one he intended

Question 18

What is the meaning of maliciously in the MR?

4th element

Answer 18

Maliciously is not wickedness but rather intention or recklessness (in subjective sense) in causing some harm

Question 19

What is the case for Maliciously intending or recklessly causing some harm?

Answer 19

R v Mowatt [1967]

Held - Lord Diplock

1. “… the word maliciously does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other GBH an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person. It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in Section 20 i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.”

Takeaway

• Intention does not have to be the gravity of Section 20