S.20: Wounding/Inflicting GBH

Question 1

Give an Introduction for S.20: Wounding/Inflicting GBH

Answer 1

• Offence also known as ‘malicious wounding’
• S.20 Offence Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA): sets out offence
• Triable-either way offence; heard in either Magistrates’ or Crown Court. Max sentence: 5 years imprisonment
  For offence to be proven must be shown that D did the following things:
  Actus Reus:
• Unlawfully wounded
  OR
• Inflicted GBH

Mens Rea:
- Intending to cause another person some harm
OR
- Was subjectively reckless as to whether another person inflicted some harm

Question 2

Explain the First element of the AR for S.20: ‘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.20: ‘Inflict’

Answer 3

• R v Burstow: ‘inflict’ simply means cause, only needs to be shown D’s actions led to consequence, don’t have to work through Assault or Battery
• Must state how wound/GBH was ‘inflicted’

Question 4

Explain the Third element of the AR for S.20: ‘Act/Omission’

Answer 4

Wound/GBH could’ve been inflicted 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.20: ‘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 for the MR for S.20.

Answer 6

• R v Cunningham: ‘maliciously’ didn’t require any ill will towards person injured
• Parmenter: no need for D to foresee that level of injury
• R v Mohan: Direct Intention: Intention to cause another person some harm
• R v Cunningham: Recklessness: Was D subjectively reckless as to whether another person suffered some harm
• R v Latimer: Transferred malice can be used (if offence is from person to person)
• R v Pembilton: Transferred malice can’t be used when offence isn’t of the same kind (person to property)