S18 Wounding or causing GBH with intent Flashcards
Q: What is the law on s18 GBH?
S18 OAPA 1861- Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of an offence.
Q: What is the sentence for s18 GBH?
Triable on indictment only
Life imprisonment
Q: What are the different forms of s18 offence?
An offence under s18 may take one of four different forms, namely:
1: wounding with intent to do GBH
- MR is intent to cause GBH. Accused must intend to wound.
- Doesn’t matter that the harm occurs to someone else other than V, as long as D intended to cause it to someone.
2: causing GBH with intent to do so
- MR is intent to cause GBH. Accused must intend to cause GBH.
- Doesn’t matter that the harm occurs to someone else other than V, as long as D intended to cause it to someone.
3: maliciously wounding with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension etc. of any person
4: maliciously causing GBH with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension etc. of any person
Q: What counts as evidence of intention to cause GBH?
- Repeated or planned attack
- Deliberate selection of a weapon
- Adaption of an article to cause injury
- Making of prior threats
Q: Can a s18 be committed recklessly?
Yes! In relation to maliciously wounding or causing GBH with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension etc. of any person
It must be proved that the accused intended his conduct to cause serious unlawful harm to another, or that he was reckless as to this occurring and he intended to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of someone.
Q: Does the lawfulness of the arrest/detention need to be proved by the prosecution?
The lawfulness of that arrest or detention must be proved by the prosecution. Does not follow that D must be proved to have known the arrest was lawful.
Q: Case- where D does not have to prove that the attest was lawful
Gardiner 1967- where D mistook the arresting officers for kidnappers. Mistaken self-defence may be raised as a defence.
Q: Can the intentional infliction of an STI also be a s18?
Yes- intentional infliction of a STI can also amount to an offence under s18. Must prove intentional infliction of a really serious sexual disease.
A confession is not enough! Must be factual and medical evidence that D transmitted the infection to the complainant.
Q: Is consent a defence? Case?
Donovan 1934- the consent of the complainant to sexual activity in the knowledge that the defendant is infectious does not amount to a defence in cases of intentional infection.
People cannot consent to such harm for public policy reasons.
Q: What if D and V are domestic partners and consents to the infliction of serious harm?
S71(2) Domestic Abuse Act 2021- it is not a defence to a charge under s47, s20 or s18 that the victim consented to the infliction of serious harm for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. It doesn’t matter whose sexual gratification that may be.
This does not relate to common assault!
Q: What if D inflicts V with an STI in the course of sexual activity?
In the case of an allegation of harm under s47 or s20 NOT s18, if the harm consists of or is the result of infection with a STI in the course of sexual activity and the victim consents to the sexual activity in the knowledge that D had the disease, then this prohibition against running the defence will not apply.
In the context of domestic relationships, it will not be a defence to argue in the case of ABH or either form of GBH that the harm was consensual and for someone’s sexual gratification. Unless, in the case of ABH and s20 GBH the serious harm consists only of a STI and the participant genuinely consented to sexual activity in the knowledge that one of them was infected.
Q: Can a s18 offence be racially or religiously aggravated?
No! it already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Any racial or religious element involved, would be an aggravating factor for the court to consider.
