Maliciously Wounding/ Inflicting GBH Flashcards
What is the sentence
Max 5 years same as s47
What is the Actus Reus of s20
To sound or inflict GBH
Why is it important the prosecution makes the correct charge which case was this a problem
Because wounding or inflict GBH are different
This was a problem in eisenhower as brushing but no break of skin so wounding would have failed but GBH would have not
What is the difference in wounding GBH in broad terms
Harm for wounding need not be high as that for GBH
What is wounding and which case was it decided in
Wounding requires both layers of skin to be broken
Moriarty v Brookes
Brushing or internal bleeding is not a wound as decided
Eisenhower
Which case indicated a broken bone is not a wound unless it breaks through the skin
Wood
If there is proof of a wound the injury it’s self does not need to be
Serious
What does GBH mean
Really serious harm as decided in DPP v smith
Which case held that the severity or the injuries should be assessed according to Vs age and health
Bollom
Which case held serious psychiatric problems could amount to GBH
Ireland and burrow
Which case held infecting someone with HIV is seen as GBH
Dica
What is it more commonly known as
Maliciously wounding
What is the men’s rea of s20
Maliciously mean with Intention or recklessness to cause some harm
Which case indicated d mist foresee that some harm may result
Parameter and savage
It is not necessary to prove d foresaw really serious harm or even the exact nature cases
Parementer and savage and mowatt
Facts or r v Lewis
Indicates a s20
Ds wife locked in flat and d threatened from outside she was so scared she jumped out the window and broke her legs, threats amounted to assault
Facts or Eisenhower
D shot v with air gun which hit v near the eye resulting in bruises and fluid forming
Found not guilty or wounding because of no break of the skin internal rupturing of blood vessel is not a wound
R v Barstow facts
Serious psychiatric harm can amount to s20
D was upset when girlfriend ended relationship and d began to follow her and phone her, write menacing letters and call at her home as a result c suffered sever depression
On appeal law lords confirmed conviction that both s18 and s20 must be interpreted to include psychiatric harm
R v Ireland facts
Silent telephone calls can amount to an assault
Made silent telephone calls this could be an assault of apprehension of immediate unlawful force
R v mowatt facts
Men’s rea for s20 GBH
D hit v several times and left him unconscious found guilt by appealed as problem with maliciously
C of a upheld conviction say to commit s20 is simply required to have foreseen the risk of some physical harm it is not required to intends or be reckless about actually causing GBH or wounding
