OAPA: s.20 GBH Flashcards
what is s.20 GBH
-unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH with or without a weapon or instrument
what is the AR of s.20 GBH
-unlawfully wounding or causing GBH with or without a weapon or instrument
give 8 key cases regarding AR of s.20 GBH
-R v Riggs; no need to use weapon/ instrument
-Moriarty v Brookes; ‘wounding’ means whole skin must be broken
-DPP v Smith; GBH given natural meaning of ‘really serious harm’
-R v Grundy; Q of fact for jury, take totality of injuries from one attack into account
-Bollom; need not be permanent / life threatening
-Hicks; unconsciousness capable of being GBH
-R v Ireland; Burstow; psuchiatric injury can be GBH
-Wood; wound not essential
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Riggs
-no need to use weapon/ instrument
-D headbutted V
what happened/ is the legal principle in Moriarty v Brookes
-‘wounding’ means whole skin must be broken
what happened/ is the legal principle in DPP v Smith
- GBH given natural meaning of ‘really serious harm’
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Grundy and R v Brown
-R v Grundy; Q of fact for jury
-take totality of injuries from one attack into account
-R v Brown; can take totality of injuries into account if charge accurately reflects the relevent time period
-V abused over several days
what happened/ is the legal principle in Bollom
-need not be permanent / life threatening
what happened/ is the legal principle in Hicks
-unconsciousness capable of being GBH
what happened/ is the legal principle in Ireland; Burstow
psychiatric injury can be GBH
what happened/ is the legal principle in Wood
-wound not essential
-GBH may cover cases with no wound
how is AR of s.20 GBh assessed
-assessed objectively but victims characteristics (age,sex,vulnerability) can be taken into account
give 3 cases regarding transmission of serious infection/disease
-R v Dica and R v Konzani; Ds had actual knowledge of positive HIV status and failed to disclose so women got infected –>s.20 found
-R v Golding; D plead guilty to s.20 as he failed to disclose herpes infection
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Dica and R v Konzani
-Ds had actual knowledge of positive HIV status and failed to disclose so women got infected –>s.20 found
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Golding
-D plead guilty to s.20 as he failed to disclose herpes infection
-can you plead guilty to something with no intention?
what cases support what is meant by ‘inflicted’
-‘inflicted’ = caused
-supported by Burstow and Dica
what are the 3 maib parts of the AR of s.20 GBH
-‘unlawfully’ (Stokes; shoukd not be overlooked)(consider with defences)
-‘wounding’ (Moriarty v Brookes; whole skin broken)
-‘inflicted’ (= caused, Burstow and Dica)
what is the MR of s.20 GBH
-‘maliciously’ which means intention/recklessness but here just recklessness
what is the test for recklessness
-R v G&R; requires subjective foresight of risk and it is objectively unreasonable to run that risk
what is the MR of s.20 GBH for transmission of disease/infection
-satisfied if shown D took risks relating to infection
-eg unprotected sex with actual knowledge of condition that can be spread through sexual contact
what is sufficient for MR of s.20 GBH
-enough that D foresaw only some bodily harm mayresult (Diplcok L in R v Mowatt and affirmed by HoL in Savage, Parmenter)
-not enough that D intended to frighten V/cause V fear
-UNLESS D foresaw the fright might result in some harm of which psychiatric injury is a form (Flack v Hunt)
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Mowatt (affirmed by Savage, Parmenter)
-enough that D foresaw only some bodily harm may result (Diplcok L in R v Mowatt and affirmed by HoL in Savage, Parmenter)
what happened/ is the legal principle in Flack v Hunt
-not enough that D intended to frighten V/cause V fear
-UNLESS D foresaw the fright might result in some harm of which psychiatric injury is a form (Flack v Hunt)
explain sentencing for s.20 GBH
-max 5 years
-for injuries including: permanent disability/loss of sensory functions, serious wounds, disfigurement, broken bones, psychiatric injury (expert evidence provided), requiring lengthy/substantial treatment
