Grievous bodily harm with intent

Question 1

D may be liable under

Answer 1

Section 18 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861 for unlawfully and maliciously wounding [OR unlawfully malicious CAUSING grievous bodily harm ] WITH INTENT to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest.

Question 2

The ACTUS REUS is

Answer 2

an act or omission causing a wound [OR GBH].

Question 3

[An omission is a

Answer 3

failure to act where there is a duty to do so contractual /Pittwood, voluntary care/Stone and Dobinson, dangerous situation/Miller].

Question 4

Here V’s injuries constitute a wound,

Answer 4

defined in EISENHOWEVER as breaking both outer and inner layer of skin as she [eg. deep cuts, stab wounds, bleeding]

Question 5

[OR constitute GBH] ,

Answer 5

defined as really serious (SMITH) or serious harm SAUNDERS) as she suffered [eg. broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability/loss of sense, serious infection - DICA, serious psychiatric harm-BURSTOW, IRELAND].

Question 6

Factual causation is satisfied as

Answer 6

as “but for” D [say what D did], the wound [or GBH] would not have occurred (PAGETT,WHITE) and legal causation is satisfied as D was the operating and substantial cause of the wound [or GBH] as it was a significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH).

Question 7

[eg. falling over and suffering cuts] is an

Answer 7

intervening act (novus actus iterveniens) but will not break the chain of causation as it reasonably foreseeable (PAGETT:”act of a third party/contribution of others” or ROBERTS:”victims own act”) and legal causation is satisfied. Medical negligence as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act does not break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE) unless it is “palpably wrong” (JORDAN). The thin skull rule means to take your victim as you find them where the victim has a hidden weakness so there will be legal causation (BLAUE).

Question 8

As set out in BELFON,

Answer 8

the MENS REA is specific/direct intention ONLY as to causing grievous bodily harm or resisting or preventing arrest. D had specific/direct intention as she decided to bring a particular consequence (MOHAN) of really serious (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS) when she [eg. attacked Y with a weapon / viscious /racist/pre-meditated/vulnerable victim}.

Question 9

If there is intention to resist/prevent arrest,

Answer 9

D needs only to be subjectively reckless as to the harm.

Question 10

“the transferred malice principle applies,

Answer 10

where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V”.

Question 11

TO CONCLUDE,

Answer 11

D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are present