Inflicting GBH

Question 1

GBH actus reus

Answer 1

Any act which causes “really serious” bodily harm (inc. psychiatric illnesses). Need not be caused by any “assault”; instead it need only be “inflicted”, which has a much wider meaning

Question 2

GBH “really serious bodily harm” case

Answer 2

DPP v Smith

Question 3

What constitutes GBH changes by victim, can’t say a particular injury does or does not

Answer 3

R v Bollom

Considered whether assault on a child may be GBH where for an adult it would not

Question 4

What constitutes GBH is dependednt on contemporary social standards decided by jury

Answer 4

R v Golding

Transmitting herpes is GBH

Question 5

Don’t have to inflict the GBH personally, just cause it

Answer 5

R v Martin

Question 6

Psychiatric injury can be GBH

Answer 6

R v Burstow

Stalker induces serious mental breakdown

Question 7

Need not batter/assault, only prove causation

Answer 7

R v Dica

transmitted HIV, did not assault/batter as touching was consensual, but still convicted

Question 8

GBH mens rea

Answer 8

Intended or reckless as to causing “some harm”. Do not need to foresee full consequences of actions. “Malicious” has, since R v Cunningham, been interpreted to refer to both states of mind (and it certainly does not relate at all to “malice” in its ordinary meaning)

Question 9

Need to foresee some harm

Answer 9

DPP v Parmenter

Shook baby, did not foresee harm, could not be tried under s.20

Question 10

Must take a certain level of risk

Complications

Answer 10

Unclear what level of risk exactly
Is less than 0.1% risk enough to escape?
Bc then R v Dica would be wrongly decided as the odds of transmitting HIV are extremely low
Needs to be a reasonable risk to run. Must justify the risk to the court (not wanting to wear a condom probs not sufficient). Also multiple exposures to the risk will increase the risk thus making it reckless

Question 11

Causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s. 18 OAPA)

mens rea

Answer 11

The same as per s.20, except that the prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally caused the gbh. Since by definition D should have intended gbh, he can only rely on the victim’s consent where the defence makes one of the approved “lists” (eg boxing).

Question 12

Administering a noxious substance, thereby inflicting grievous bodily harm or endangering life (s23 OAPA)
Actus reus

Answer 12

Administering or causing to be administered a noxious substance, thereby endangering life or inflicting grievous bodily harm

Question 13

Recreational drugs constitute noxious substances

Answer 13

R v Kennedy

Question 14

Any substance that annoys or interferes with health can count

Answer 14

R v Marcus

Definition is wide as the offence only arises if GBH is induced or life endangered

Question 15

s23 and HIV

Answer 15

Even where HIV is not passed on, by ejaculating you administer a noxious substance that endangers life so can (theoretically) be convicted under s23

Question 16

s23 Mens rea

Answer 16

Reckless or intentional administration

Question 17

s23 not necessary to prove that D intended or foresaw any endangering of life or grievous bodily harm as well

Answer 17

R v Cunningham

Question 18

s23

Consent does not negate liability

Answer 18

R v Cato
Drug addict injected fellow drug addict at his request
Why is this not okay but R v Kennedy is?