Malicious wounding/inflicting GBH Flashcards
Under what section is malicious wounding/ inflicting GBH?
s20 OAPA 1861
What is the statute deffiniton of malicious wounding/Inflicting GBH under s20 OAPA 1861?
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
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?
s.20 OAPA 1861
What is the s20 OAPA 1861 commonly known as?
malicious wounding
What type of offence is s20 OAPA?
triable either way offence
What does s20 OAPA 1861 have the same sentencing as?
s47 OAPA 1861
What is a problem with the fact that s20 and s47 of the OAPA 1861 have the same sentencing powers, 5 years?
as despite the fact that s20 is seen as more serious and requires both a higher degree of injury and mens rea
For the s20 offence to be proven what must it show the defendant did?
wounded or inflicted GBH intending some injury to be caused (not serious) or was reckless as to whether any injury was inflicted
What is a wound?
a wound is a cut or a break in the continuity of the whole skin
What does not count as a wound?
internal bleeding
What case demonstrates that where there is internal bleeding, this does not suffice as a wound under s20 OAPA?
JJC v Eisenhower 1983
What happened in the case of JJC v Eisenhower 1983?
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
In the case of JJC v Eisenhower 1983 what did the courts say did not constitute as a wound?
internal bleeding or a scratch
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?
JJC v Eisenhower 1983
When will a broken bone be considered a wound?
if the bone breaks the skin
What happened in the old case of Wood 1830?
Vs collar bone was broken but as the skin was intact, it was held there was no wound
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?
Wood 1830
What case held that grievous bodily harm means ‘really serious harm’?
DPP v Smith 1961
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’?
Sanders 1985
In what case was it held that the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victims age and health?
Bollom 2004
What happened in the case of Bollom 2004?
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.
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?
Bollom 2004
What happened in the case of Burstow 1997?
V suffered from a severe depressive illness as a result of their stalkers conduct. It was decided that serious psychiatric injury could be GBH
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?
Burstow 1997
What happened in the case of Dica 2004?
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.
Originally, what was the word ‘inflict’ taken as meaning?
meaning that there had to be a technical assault or battery
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?
Lewis 1974
What happened in the case of Lewis 1974?
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.
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?
Lewis 1974
What did the case of Burstow 1997 hold?
that it need only be shown that Ds actions led to the consequences of the victim suffering from GBH.
What is a problem with the decision made in Burstow 1997?
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’
What is the word used in s20 OAPA 1861 which indicates the mens rea of malicious wounding/inflicting GBH?
maliciously
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)
Cunningham 1957
what is the mens rea for s18 OAPA 1861?
specific intent to cause GBH or resist arrest
What is the mens rea for s20 OAPA 1861?
intention or recklessness as to some harm
What is the mens rea for s47 OAPA 1861 and common assault?
intention or recklessness as to putting V in fear of unlawful force or applying unlawful force assault.
What is the injury for s18 and s22 OAPA 1861?
wound inflicting GBH
What is the injury in s47?
ABH
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?
Parmenter 1991
How may the prosecution prove that D had the mens rea for an offence?
if they intended to cause another person harm or was subjectively reckless as to whether the person suffered from harm
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?
Parmenter 1991
What happened in the case of Parmenter 1991?
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
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?
Parmenter 1991
