Non-fatal offences-s.20 (GBH)

Question 1

What is the AR of GBH?

Answer 1

Wounding or inflicting GBH

Question 2

What is the MR of GBH?

Answer 2

Intention or recklessness as to some harm

Question 3

Which act does GBH come from?

Answer 3

Offences Against the Person Act (1861)

Question 4

What is the maximum sentence for s.20 offences?

Answer 4

5 years

Question 5

What does s.20 of the OAPA (1861) state?

Answer 5

“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any instrument, shall be guilty of an offence.”

Question 6

What is the offence often referred to as?

Answer 6

Malicious wounding grievous bodily harm (GBH)

Question 7

What is the AR of s.20 crimes?

Answer 7

Unlawfully wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.

Question 8

Which 4 words in the AR of s.20 crimes need discussing?

Answer 8

1. Unlawful
2. Wound
3. Inflict
4. Grievous bodily harm

Question 9

What does unlawful mean in the AR of s.20 crimes?

Answer 9

No consent
e.g., giving someone a tattoo they consented to is not a s.20 crime.

Question 10

What does inflict mean from the AR of s.20 crimes?

Answer 10

Defined in court as “cause”.

Question 11

What does wound mean in the AR of s.20 crimes?

Answer 11

Requires a breaking of both layers of the skin; that is, an open wound, usually with blood loss.

Question 12

Which case is an example for where the court decided there was no wounding because the skin didn’t break?

Answer 12

JCC v Eisenhower (1998)

Question 13

Give the facts of JCC v Eisenhower (1998).

Answer 13

V was hit by an airgun pellet in the eye.
He suffered bruising and internal bruising in the eye.

Question 14

What principle comes from JCC v Eisenhower (1998)?

Answer 14

Wounding= breaking both layers of the skin.

Question 15

What was grievous bodily harm defined as in DPP v Smith (1961)?

Answer 15

“Really serious” crime

Question 16

Give the facts of DPP v Smith (1961).

Answer 16

D trying to escape from a police in a car was signalled to stop.
He did not do so.
A PC jumped onto the car’s bonnet.
D drove at high speed, swerving from side to side, until the officer was thrown off and killed.

Question 17

What did Viscount Kilmuir LC say about the meaning of “bodily harm” and “grievous”?

Answer 17

“I can find no warrant for giving the words “grievous bodily harm” a meaning other than that which the words convey in their ordinary and natural meaning.
“Bodily harm” needs no explanation and “grievous” means no more or no less than “really serious”.”

Question 18

Which case overturned the definition of “grievous” in GBH meaning “really serious” and changed it to just “serious” crime?

Answer 18

Saunders (1985)

Question 19

What did the judge in Saunders (1985) say about the phrase “really serious”?

Answer 19

The word was superfluous (unnecessary).
“Really serious” and “serious” are the same thing

Question 20

Give the facts of Brown and Stratton (1998).

Answer 20

Brown and Stratton were cousins who jointly attacked Stratton’s father as Stratton found his father’s ongoing gender reassignment embarrassing. The drunken defendants went to the father’s house, intending to assault her and inflicted various injuries including a broken nose, a concussion and knocked out several teeth.

Question 21

What is the principle of Brown and Stratton (1998)?

Answer 21

Many injuries which individually might be ABH can collectively be considered GBH.

Question 22

Give the facts of Bollom (2003).

Answer 22

The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partner’s seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts.
D’s actions leave baby with extensive bruising

Question 23

What is the principle of Bollom (2003)?

Answer 23

Court takes account fact that injuries to the very young/ old may be more serious than they would be for a healthy adult.

Question 24

Summarise facts of Burstow (1997).

Answer 24

D harassed ex-gf (though not physically).

Question 25

What 2 principles come from Burstow (1997)?

Answer 25

1. Psychiatric harm can be GBH.
2. GBH does not require direct or indirect force.

Question 26

Give the facts of Dica (2004).

Answer 26

D had s*x with 2 women knowing he had HIV.

Question 27

What is the principle of Dica (2004)?

Answer 27

Recklessly transmitting a disease to another is GBH.

Question 28

What is the MR of s.20 crimes?

Answer 28

D intends or recklessly inflicts “some harm”.

Question 29

Does the D need intention/recklessness to cause wounding/GBH?

Answer 29

No, just “some harm”.

Question 30

What word does the OAPA 1861 act use which is not terribly helpful?

Answer 30

“Maliciously”

Question 31

Summarise the facts of Mowatt (1976).

Answer 31

D hit V several times after D’s friend stole V’s money and V wanted to chase and find him.

Question 32

What was established in Mowatt (1976)?

Answer 32

Intention/recklessness to cause “some harm” is enough for MR.
No intent or foresight that worse harm could result is necessary.

Question 33

Give the facts of Savage (1991).

Answer 33

The D met V in a pub.
The V was a former girlfriend of the D’s husband.
The D said “nice to meet you, darling.”
Then, threw the contents of a pint glass at the V.
As she was doing so she also let go of the glass, which broke and cut the V’s wrist.

Question 34

What did the jury decide in Savage (1991)?

Answer 34

The D had at least been reckless.
By throwing the contents of her glass at the V, she had created a situation in which “some harm” might occur if she also let go of the glass.

Question 35

In Savage (1991), what meant that more than “some harm” happened?

Answer 35

The glass broke.

Question 36

In Savage (1991), how was the V wounded?

Answer 36

There was broken skin.

Question 37

Intention/recklessness to what is sufficient enough for prosecution under s.20 of the OAPA (1861)?

Answer 37

To cause “some harm”.
(The D did not have to have i/r to cause wounding/GBH,

Question 38

Summarise the facts of Parmenter (1991).

Answer 38

D caused injury to his baby by tossing him around in a way which would have been acceptable with an older child but not with one so young.

Question 39

What did the D not realise in Parmenter (1991)

Answer 39

Since he was not used to dealing with children, he did not realise that his actions might cause “some harm”.

Question 40

What principle comes from Parmenter (1991)?

Answer 40

For recklessness to be present, the D needs to know that his actions might cause “some harm”.

Question 41

What other case defines the word “wound”?

Answer 41

Moriarty v Brookes (1834)

Question 42

Give the facts of Moriarty v Brookes (1834).

Answer 42

The defendant was a publican (someone who owns or manages a pub).
He argued with a customer over a disputed payment and struck him causing a cut below his eye.
The publican argued he had asked the customer to leave and he had refused to do so and the force was lawfully applied in ejecting him from the pub.
D had used excessive force.

Question 43

What did Lord Lyndhurst set the definition of wound as in Moriarty v Brookes (1834)?

Answer 43

“The definition of a wound in criminal cases is an injury to the person, by which the skin is broken. If the skin is broken, and there was a bleeding, that is a wound”