GBH s 20 and s 18 Flashcards
what level of offence is GBH?
there are 2 offences; malicious wounding and inflicting gbh
s 20 is triable-either-way
what is the max penalty for gbh s 20
5 years
what has to be shown for offence to be proven?
-wounded OR
-inflicting grievous bodily harm
and that they did this;
-intending some injury (but not serious injury to be caused)
- being reckless as to whether any injury was inflicted
what is this offence?
whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any gbh upon any other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence.
what is ‘wound’?
a cut or a break in the continuity of the whole skin.
a cut of internal skin like in the cheek is sufficient but internal bleeding where there is no cut in the skin is not sufficient.
what case shows that as there was no cut it wasn’t held as a wound?
JJC v Eisenhower (shotgun pellet hit V’s eye but did not penetrate it, caused severe bleeding under the surface, as there was no cut, it was held as not a wound)
what case shows that a broken bone is not considered a wound unless the skin is broken as well?
R v Wood, V’s collarbone broken but skin intact, so no wound
what does grievous bodily harm mean?
really serious harm which may be physical, psychiatric or by deliberate infection with a serious disease.
DPP v Smith - gbh is ‘really serious harm’
what did the case of R v Bollom show about gbh?
the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victim’s age and health. (bruising amounted for gbh for a baby)
what case shows that psychiatric injury can be gbh?
R v Burstow (severe depressive illness)
what case shows gbh through infecting Vs with disease?
R v Dica - infecting others with HIV virus was gbh
what does ‘inflicting gbh’ mean?
originally, taken as there has to be an assault or battery, but interpreted widely
R v Lewis (shouting threats lead V to jump out window and broke legs, D convicted, threats considered as assault)
what did R v Burstow show in relation to ‘inflict’?
does not require a technical assault or battery, need only be shown D’s actions led to consequence of D suffering gbh
what does ‘maliciously’ mean in the mens rea of s 20 and the case that showed this?
in Cunningham, ‘maliciously’ does not require any ill will towards the person injured.
D intended to cause the V particular kind of harm or they were subjectively reckless as whether another suffered some harm
what is meant by ‘particular type of harm’? parameter
R v Parameter, no need for D to foresee this level of serious injury
