Malicious wounding/inflicting GBH

Question 1

Under what section is malicious wounding/ inflicting GBH?

Answer 1

s20 OAPA 1861

Question 2

What is the statute deffiniton of malicious wounding/Inflicting GBH under s20 OAPA 1861?

Answer 2

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or inflict any GBH upon another person, either with or without a weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable for imprisonment up to 5 years

Question 3

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or inflict any GBH upon another person, either with or without a weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable for imprisonment up to 5 years
What is this deffiniton for?

Answer 3

s.20 OAPA 1861

Question 4

What is the s20 OAPA 1861 commonly known as?

Answer 4

malicious wounding

Question 5

What type of offence is s20 OAPA?

Answer 5

triable either way offence

Question 6

What does s20 OAPA 1861 have the same sentencing as?

Answer 6

s47 OAPA 1861

Question 7

What is a problem with the fact that s20 and s47 of the OAPA 1861 have the same sentencing powers, 5 years?

Answer 7

as despite the fact that s20 is seen as more serious and requires both a higher degree of injury and mens rea

Question 8

For the s20 offence to be proven what must it show the defendant did?

Answer 8

wounded or inflicted GBH intending some injury to be caused (not serious) or was reckless as to whether any injury was inflicted

Question 9

What is a wound?

Answer 9

a wound is a cut or a break in the continuity of the whole skin

Question 10

What does not count as a wound?

Answer 10

internal bleeding

Question 11

What case demonstrates that where there is internal bleeding, this does not suffice as a wound under s20 OAPA?

Answer 11

JJC v Eisenhower 1983

Question 12

What happened in the case of JJC v Eisenhower 1983?

Answer 12

V was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet. Did not penetrate the eye but caused severe internal bleeding. As there was no cut, it was held that this was not a wound. Cut must be the whole wound, a scratch is not considered a wound

Question 13

In the case of JJC v Eisenhower 1983 what did the courts say did not constitute as a wound?

Answer 13

internal bleeding or a scratch

Question 14

V was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet. Did not penetrate the eye but caused severe internal bleeding. As there was no cut, it was held that this was not a wound. Cut must be the whole wound, a scratch is not considered a wound
What case is this?

Answer 14

JJC v Eisenhower 1983

Question 15

When will a broken bone be considered a wound?

Answer 15

if the bone breaks the skin

Question 16

What happened in the old case of Wood 1830?

Answer 16

Vs collar bone was broken but as the skin was intact, it was held there was no wound

Question 17

Vs collar bone was broken but as the skin was intact, it was held there was no wound. D found not guilty
What case is this?

Answer 17

Wood 1830

Question 18

What case held that grievous bodily harm means ‘really serious harm’?

Answer 18

DPP v Smith 1961

Question 19

In what case was it held that it was permissible to direct a jury that there needs to be ‘serious harm’ not including the word ‘really’?

Answer 19

Sanders 1985

Question 20

In what case was it held that the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victims age and health?

Answer 20

Bollom 2004

Question 21

What happened in the case of Bollom 2004?

Answer 21

D was convicted of causing GBH after there was bruising to their 17 month old child. COA substituted a conviction for assault occasioning ABH as injuries were not just from one assault.

Question 22

D was convicted of causing GBH after there was bruising to their 17 month old child. COA substituted a conviction for assault occasioning ABH as injuries were not just from one assault.
What case is this?

Answer 22

Bollom 2004

Question 23

What happened in the case of Burstow 1997?

Answer 23

V suffered from a severe depressive illness as a result of their stalkers conduct. It was decided that serious psychiatric injury could be GBH

Question 24

V suffered from a severe depressive illness as a result of their stalkers conduct. It was decided that serious psychiatric injury could be GBH
What case is this?

Answer 24

Burstow 1997

Question 25

What happened in the case of Dica 2004?

Answer 25

there was the first ever conviction for causing GBH through infecting victims with HIV. D had unprotected sex with two women without telling them. Both women became infected.

Question 26

Originally, what was the word ‘inflict’ taken as meaning?

Answer 26

meaning that there had to be a technical assault or battery

Question 27

Even though originally the word inflicting GBH was taken as meaning that there had to be a technical assault or battery, what case shows that the section has been interpreted quite widely?

Answer 27

Lewis 1974

Question 28

What happened in the case of Lewis 1974?

Answer 28

D shouted threats at his wife through a closed door and tried to break it down. V jumped from a window due to fear and broke both her legs. D convicted of a s20 offence.

Question 29

D shouted threats at his wife through a closed door and tried to break it down. V jumped from a window due to fear and broke both her legs. D convicted of a s20 offence.
What case is this?

Answer 29

Lewis 1974

Question 30

What did the case of Burstow 1997 hold?

Answer 30

that it need only be shown that Ds actions led to the consequences of the victim suffering from GBH.

Question 31

What is a problem with the decision made in Burstow 1997?

Answer 31

The decision meant that there now appears to be little, if any difference in the actus reus of the offences between s20 and s18 OAPA which use the word ‘cause’

Question 32

What is the word used in s20 OAPA 1861 which indicates the mens rea of malicious wounding/inflicting GBH?

Answer 32

maliciously

Question 33

In what case was it held that ‘maliciously’ did not require any ill will towards the person injured. It simply meant either there was an

• intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done
• reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not (was it foreseen)

Answer 33

Cunningham 1957

Question 34

what is the mens rea for s18 OAPA 1861?

Answer 34

specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest

Question 35

What is the mens rea for s20 OAPA 1861?

Answer 35

intention or recklessness as to some harm

Question 36

What is the mens rea for s47 OAPA 1861 and common assault?

Answer 36

intention or recklessness as to putting V in fear of unlawful force or applying unlawful force assault.

Question 37

What is the injury for s18 and s22 OAPA 1861?

Answer 37

wound inflicting GBH

Question 38

What is the injury in s47?

Answer 38

ABH

Question 39

In what case did the HOL confirm that Cunningham’s meaning of recklessness applies to all offences in which the statutory deffiniton uses the word maliciously?

Answer 39

Parmenter 1991

Question 40

How may the prosecution prove that D had the mens rea for an offence?

Answer 40

if they intended to cause another person harm or was subjectively reckless as to whether the person suffered from harm

Question 41

In what case was it found by the HOL that although the actus reus of a s20 requires a wound or GBH, there is no need for the defendant to foresee this level of serious injury?

Answer 41

Parmenter 1991

Question 42

What happened in the case of Parmenter 1991?

Answer 42

D injured his 3 month old baby when he threw it in the air and caught him. D did not realise risk of injury. Convicted of s20 GBH. HOL pushed conviction as there was no evidence that he foresaw injury, substituted for assault occasioning ABH under s47

Question 43

D injured his 3 month old baby when he threw it in the air and caught him. D did not realise risk of injury. Convicted of s20 GBH. HOL pushed conviction as there was no evidence that he foresaw injury, substituted for assault occasioning ABH under s47
What case is this?

Answer 43

Parmenter 1991