GBH and Wounding Flashcards
criminal law paper 1
How was a wound defined in Moriarty v Brooks?
A wound is defined as a breaking of both layers of the skin, resulting in external bleeding.
How was GBH defined in DPP v Smith?
GBH was defined as “really serious harm” that need not be life-threatening but causes significant injury.
What two things do we know about the nature of GBH from R v Burstow?
1) GBH can include serious psychiatric harm.
2) Physical contact is not necessary; actions such as harassment that cause severe psychological damage can suffice.
What does the case of R v Dica tell us about GBH?
The case established that knowingly transmitting a serious disease, such as HIV, can amount to GBH under s20.
What is the mens rea that must be established for s20?
The defendant must intend or be reckless as to causing some harm, but not necessarily serious harm.
How does R v Savage illustrate the mens rea required for s20?
In R v Savage, the defendant only needed to foresee some harm, even if the actual harm caused was more severe than anticipated.
How is the mens rea for s18 different to that required for s20?
The mens rea for s18 requires specific intent to cause GBH or resist lawful arrest, whereas s20 only requires intent or recklessness as to some harm.
Explain one criticism of s20:
A key criticism is the outdated and unclear language, such as “maliciously,” which does not reflect modern legal understanding of intent or recklessness.
Explain one proposed reform to the law in this area and how it would improve matters:
The Law Commission has proposed replacing s20 with a clearer offence of “recklessly causing serious injury.” This would modernise the language, clarify the mens rea, and ensure consistency in application.
