S.18: Wounding/Causing GBH

Question 1

Give an Introduction for S.18: Wounding/Causing GBH.

Answer 1

• Offence commonly known as ‘wounding with intent’
• S.18 Offence Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA): sets out offence
• Indictable offence, only heard in Crown Court- - Sentence for offence: life imprisonment
• Same AR + Injuries as S.20, but s.18 seen to be far more serious + requires a higher level MR.
  For the offence to be proven, the following needs to be shown:
  Actus Reus:
• Unlawfully wounded
  OR
• Caused GBH
  Mens Rea:
• Intended to do some GBH
  OR
• Resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person

Question 2

Explain the First element of the AR for S.18: ‘Wound or GBH’

Answer 2

Wound:
- JJC v Eisenhower: Wound exists where there’s a cut/break in the continuity of the skin, causing external bleeding
- Moriarty v Brookes: internal bleeding isn’t sufficient
- R v Wood: Broken bone isn’t considered a wound unless the skin is also cut
- If there’s been no wound, then GBH must’ve been inflicted!
GBH:
- Harm doesn’t have to be life-threatening but can mean serious injury/requiring extensive treatment
- R v Smith: GBH is said to be ‘really serious harm’
- Saunders: Amended ruling in Smith, Harm need only be serious
- R v Bollom: Severity of injuries should be assessed according to V’s age + health; injuries may not be really severe but are really serious to that particular individual, i.e. if they’re elderly or vulnerable.
- R v Burstow: Severe depressive illness or psychiatric condition, caused by D’s conduct, can be GBH.
- R v Dica: if D knowlingly transmits a sexually transmitted disease, this amounts to GBH

Question 3

Explain the Second element of the AR for S.18: ‘Cause’

Answer 3

• R v Burstow: words ‘cause’ +’inflict’ (inflict being the wording used in S.20) that there was no difference between the 2 words. Only needs to be shown D’s action led to consequence.
  Do not have to work through assault or battery, but must state how wound/GBH was caused.

Question 4

Explain the Third element for the AR of S.18: ‘Act/Omission’

Answer 4

Wound/GBH could’ve been caused in 1 of 4 ways (state which it is)
1) Direct Act:
- When D directly applies unlawful force to V + has intended to do specific act
2) Continuing Act:
- Fagan v MPC: may be committed through a continuing act
3) Indirect Act:
- DPP v K: D can cause force to be applied, even though he doesn’t personally touch V
4) Omissions:
- Stephen J: “A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A has committed no offence”
- R v Miller: Duty because D has set in motion a chain of events (only omission available for a battery)

Question 5

Explain the Fourth element of the AR for S.18: ‘Causation’

Answer 5

Factual:
- R v Pagett: ‘But for’ test
Legal: D’s conduct must be more than a minimal cause, but need not be a substantial cause of the end consequence
- R v Kimsey: must be more than a slight or trifling link
- R v Blaue: Thin-skull rule
- Intervening Acts: V’s own act, Act of a Third party, a natural but unpredictable event (must be sufficiently independent + sufficiently serious; breaking chain of causation)

Question 6

Explain the First element of the MR for S.18: ‘Intention’

Answer 6

• R v Mohan: Direct Intention: specific aim achieved
• R v Woolin: Oblique Intention: Prohibited consequence is a virtual certainty from D’s conduct + he realises this

Question 7

Explain the Second element of the AR for S.18: ‘Resist or Prevent the Lawful Apprehension or Detainer of Any Person’

Answer 7

Only mention if D is preventing an arrest
R v Morrison: establishes 2 point test
1) D had specific intention to resist/prevent arrest
2) But so far as the injury, need only prove D was reckless as to whether his actions caused wound/GBH