S20 GBH

Question 1

1. D may be liable under…

Answer 1

D may be liable under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for Unlawfully and Maliciously Wounding OR Unlawfully and Maliciously INFLICTING Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)].

Question 2

2. The Actus Reus is an…

Answer 2

The Actus Reus is an Act or Omission causing a Wound OR The Actus Reus is an Act or Omission 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 created/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, more than momentary loss of consciousness, biological GBH eg. inflicting a disease – DICA, serious psychiatric harm-BURSTOW, IRELAND].

Question 3

3. Factual causation is satisfied as “but for”…

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. The Mens Rea is the…

Answer 4

The Mens Rea is Intention or Subjective Recklessness AS TO SOME HARM, NOT NECESSARILY AS TO THE WOUND [OR GBH] ITSELF, as in MOWATT, PARMENTER and SAVAGE.

Here D [ CHOOSE ONE: EITHER D has specific/direct intention to cause some harm, as she decided to bring about the particular consequence of some harm (MOHAN) when [eg. punched V causing her to fall and suffer deep cuts/broken jaw in an argument]

OR

D was Subjectively Reckless as she foresaw a risk of causing some harm and carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when [ eg. she pushed V near to some stairs causing her to suffer deep cuts/broken jaw].

Question 5

5. The Transferred Malice Principle Appllies where…

Answer 5

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 6

6. TO CONCLUDE…

Answer 6

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