S18 GBH

Question 1

1. D may be liable under…

Answer 1

1. D may be liable under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for Unlawfully and Maliciously Wounding WITH INTENT to do some Grievous Bodily Harm or to resist or prevent arrest.

OR

Unlawfully and Maliciously CAUSING Grievous Bodily Harm WITH INTENT to do some Grievous Bodily Harm or to resist or prevent arrest.

Question 2

2. The Actus Reus is an Act or Omission…

Answer 2

The Actus Reus is an Act or Omission causing a Wound.

OR

An Act or Omission causing a Wound [OR GBH].

[If it’s an omission say an omission is a failure to act where there is a duty to do so and refer to one of contractual/Pittwood, voluntary care/Stone and Dobinson, dangerous situation/Miller].

Here V’s injuries constitute a wound, defined in EISENHOWER as breaking both outer
and inner layers of the skin as she suffered [eg. deep cuts, stab wounds, bleeding]

OR

Here V’s injuries constitute GBH, defined as really serious (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS) as she suffered [eg. broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability/loss of sense, serious infection – DICA, serious psychiatric harm BURSTOW, IRELAND].

Question 3

3. Factual Causation is satisfied…

Answer 3

Factual Causation is satisfied as “but for” D [say what D did], the wound [or GBH] would not have occurred (PAGETT,WHITE) and Legal Causation is satisfied as D was the operating and substantial cause of the wound [or GBH] as it was a significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH).

[APPLY TO LEGAL CAUSATION ONLY IF RELEVANT:

1. Y [eg. falling over and suffering cuts] is an intervening act (Novus Actus Interveniens) but will not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably foreseeable (use PAGETT: ”act of a third party/contribution of others” or ROBERTS: ”victim’s own act”) and Legal Causation is satisfied.
2. Medical Negligence as a Novus Actus Interveniens/intervening act does not break the chain of causation (CHESHIRE) unless it is “palpably wrong” (JORDAN). Here…………..
3. The thin skull rule means to take your victim as you find them where the victim has a hidden weakness and so there will be legal causation (BLAUE). Here………………].

Question 4

4. As set out in BELFON and MORRISON, the Mens Rea is specific/direct intention ONLY as to causing Grievous Bodily Harm or resisting or preventing arrest.

D had specific/direct intention…

Answer 4

As set out in BELFON and MORRISON, the MENS REA is specific/direct intention ONLY as to causing grievous bodily harm or resisting or preventing arrest.

D had specific/direct intention as she decided to bring about the particular consequence (MOHAN) of really serious (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS) when she [eg. attacked Y with a weapon / vicious /racist/ repeated/pre-meditated/vulnerable victim].

Question 5

5. If there is intention to resist arrest…

Answer 5

IF RELEVANT: If there is intention to resist/prevent arrest, D needs only to be subjectively reckless as to the harm.

Question 6

6. The Transferred Malice Principle Applies Where…

Answer 6

IF RELEVANT: “The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident as in Latimer, so D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V.”

Question 7

7. TO CONCLUDE…

Answer 7

TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are present.