OAPA: s.20 GBH

Question 1

what is s.20 GBH

Answer 1

-unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH with or without a weapon or instrument

Question 2

what is the AR of s.20 GBH

Answer 2

-unlawfully wounding or causing GBH with or without a weapon or instrument

Question 3

give 8 key cases regarding AR of s.20 GBH

Answer 3

-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

Question 4

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Riggs

Answer 4

-no need to use weapon/ instrument
-D headbutted V

Question 5

what happened/ is the legal principle in Moriarty v Brookes

Answer 5

-‘wounding’ means whole skin must be broken

Question 6

what happened/ is the legal principle in DPP v Smith

Answer 6

• GBH given natural meaning of ‘really serious harm’

Question 7

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Grundy and R v Brown

Answer 7

-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

Question 8

what happened/ is the legal principle in Bollom

Answer 8

-need not be permanent / life threatening

Question 9

what happened/ is the legal principle in Hicks

Answer 9

-unconsciousness capable of being GBH

Question 10

what happened/ is the legal principle in Ireland; Burstow

Answer 10

psychiatric injury can be GBH

Question 11

what happened/ is the legal principle in Wood

Answer 11

-wound not essential
-GBH may cover cases with no wound

Question 12

how is AR of s.20 GBh assessed

Answer 12

-assessed objectively but victims characteristics (age,sex,vulnerability) can be taken into account

Question 13

give 3 cases regarding transmission of serious infection/disease

Answer 13

-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

Question 14

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Dica and R v Konzani

Answer 14

-Ds had actual knowledge of positive HIV status and failed to disclose so women got infected –>s.20 found

Question 15

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Golding

Answer 15

-D plead guilty to s.20 as he failed to disclose herpes infection
-can you plead guilty to something with no intention?

Question 16

what cases support what is meant by ‘inflicted’

Answer 16

-‘inflicted’ = caused
-supported by Burstow and Dica

Question 17

what are the 3 maib parts of the AR of s.20 GBH

Answer 17

-‘unlawfully’ (Stokes; shoukd not be overlooked)(consider with defences)
-‘wounding’ (Moriarty v Brookes; whole skin broken)
-‘inflicted’ (= caused, Burstow and Dica)

Question 18

what is the MR of s.20 GBH

Answer 18

-‘maliciously’ which means intention/recklessness but here just recklessness

Question 19

what is the test for recklessness

Answer 19

-R v G&R; requires subjective foresight of risk and it is objectively unreasonable to run that risk

Question 20

what is the MR of s.20 GBH for transmission of disease/infection

Answer 20

-satisfied if shown D took risks relating to infection
-eg unprotected sex with actual knowledge of condition that can be spread through sexual contact

Question 21

what is sufficient for MR of s.20 GBH

Answer 21

-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)

Question 22

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Mowatt (affirmed by Savage, Parmenter)

Answer 22

-enough that D foresaw only some bodily harm may result (Diplcok L in R v Mowatt and affirmed by HoL in Savage, Parmenter)

Question 23

what happened/ is the legal principle in Flack v Hunt

Answer 23

-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)

Question 24

explain sentencing for s.20 GBH

Answer 24

-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