GBH s18 and s20 Flashcards
what section is GBH s.20 and s.18 under?
offences against the person act 1861
how do you tell apart GBH s.20 and s.18?
for a s.20 offence the D must intentionally or wrecklessly wound or inflict GBH on the V. In s.18 only a clear intention to wound or inflict GBH, ther is no wrecklessness in s.18
what is is the AR of s.20 and s.18 GBH?
unlawfully or maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon another person
what is wound defined as in Eisenhower?
breaking both layers of skin
what does Smith say about GBH?
defined as ‘really serious harm’
what does Brown and Stratton establish about GBH?
if there are multiple minor injuries, this could add up to GBH
what does Bollam establish about GBH?
if the severity of the injuries are worse because of the victims age or health
what is the MR of s.18?
its described in the word maliciously, this is interpreted as either direct intent (Mohan) or indirect intent (Woolin), there does not need to be intention to cause really serious harm
s.20 GBH scaffold
In relation to the D’s liability towards V, they would be liable for GBH under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person 1861.
The actus reus of s.20 is to unlawfully or maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon another person. Wound was defined in Eisenhower as breaking both layers of the skin. GBH was defined in Smith as ‘really serious harm’.
In this scenario… (establish either wounding or GBH).
Only include if relevant:
If the severity of the injuries are worse because of the victim’s age or health (Bollam).
If there are multiple minor injuries could add up to GBH (Brown and Stratton).
Both factual and legal causation must then be proven. In this scenario, ‘but for’ (Pagett) D’s actions towards V they would not have suffered the injuries.
It must also be proven that the D is the ‘operating and substantial cause’. There must be no intervening acts that break the chain of causation, such as victims own act (Roberts), medical negligence (Cheshire) and third party actions (Pagett). The thin skull rule never breaks the chain of causation (Blaue).
In this scenario… (apply any intervening acts)
If the chain of causation is not broken then D is the legal cause.
The mens rea of s.20 is defined in the word ‘maliciously’, this is interpreted as intent or recklessness as to ‘some harm’. Intent can be direct (Mohan) or indirect (Woolin). Recklessness is subjective as in Cunningham. There does not need to be intention for serious harm, only some harm will suffice.
In this scenario, the D has intent/recklessness as to some harm when they…
Direct intent is when it is the D;s main aim and purpose to cause the consequence.
Indirect intent is when it is not the D’s main aim or purpose, ‘virtually certain’.
Subjective recklessness is when the D foresees the risk but goes ahead anyway.
Therefore, D would/would not be convicted of GBH under s.20 for their actions.
S18 GBH scaffold
In relation to the D’s liability towards V, they would be liable for GBH under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person 1861.
The actus reus of s.18 is to unlawfully or maliciously wound or inflict GBH upon another person. Wound was defined in Eisenhower as breaking both layers of the skin. GBH was defined in Smith as ‘really serious harm’.
In this scenario… (establish either wounding or GBH).
Only include if relevant:
If the severity of the injuries are worse because of the victim’s age or health (Bollam)
If there are multiple minor injuries, could add up to GBH (Brown and Stratton)
Both factual and legal causation must then be proven. In this scenario, ‘but for’ (Pagett) D’s actions towards V they would not have suffered the injuries.
It must also be proven that the D is the ‘operating and substantial cause’. There must be no intervening acts that break the chain of causation, such as the victim’s own act (Roberts), medical negligence (Cheshire) and third party actions (Pagett). The thin skull rule never breaks the chain of causation (Blaue).
In this scenario… (apply any intervening acts)
If the chain of causation is not broken then D is the legal cause.
The mens rea of s.18 is defined in the word ‘maliciously’, this is interpreted as direct intent (Mohan) or indirect (Woolin). There does need to be intention to cause ‘really serious harm’.
In this scenario, the D has direct intent/ indirect intent as to serious harm when they…
Direct intent is when it is the D’s main aim and purpose to cause the consequence.
Indirect intent is when it is not the D’s main aim and purpose, but is ‘virtually certain’ to occur
Therefore, D would/ would not be convicted of GBH under s.18 for their actions.
