Section 18 Wounding Flashcards
What is Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
D may be liable for unlawfully and maliciously wounding with intent to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest, or for unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest.
What constitutes the ACTUS REUS for Section 18?
An act or omission causing a wound or causing GBH.
An omission is a failure to act where there is a duty to do so, referring to contractual (Pittwood), voluntary care (Stone and Dobinson), or dangerous situation (Miller).
How is a wound defined?
A wound is defined as breaking layers of the skin, as seen in EISENHOWER, where the victim suffered deep cuts, stab wounds, or bleeding.
How is GBH defined?
GBH is defined as really serious harm (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS), including injuries like broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability/loss of sense, serious infection (DICA), or serious psychiatric harm (BURSTOW, IRELAND).
What is factual causation in the context of Section 18?
Factual causation is satisfied as ‘but for’ D’s actions, the wound or GBH would not have occurred (PAGETT, WHITE, HUGHES).
What determines the legal cause of injury in Section 18?
D hitting V was probably the legal cause of the injury as it was the operating and substantial cause, being the significant, more than minimal cause (Smith, Pagett).
What is a novus actus interveniens?
A novus actus interveniens can break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable.
Cases like Corbett, Roberts, and Kennedy illustrate this, where the victim’s own act may break the chain if unforeseeable.
What happens if the victim’s response to D’s actions is foreseeable?
If V’s response to D’s actions was foreseeable, it will not break the chain of causation.
What does Pagett concern regarding third party acts?
X’s actions were unforeseeable, and will break the chain OR X’s actions were foreseeable, and will not break the chain.
How does medical negligence affect the chain of causation?
Medical negligence is an intervening act that usually will not break the chain of causation, unless it is considered very serious (‘palpably wrong’).
Here, the surgeon’s actions were an intervening act, but were not palpably wrong, so will not break the chain. OR The surgeon’s actions were an intervening act, and were palpably wrong, so will break the chain.
What is the thin skull rule?
If V has a hidden weakness, then D is expected to ‘take his victim as he finds them’.
Here, D cannot blame V for her extreme reaction to his actions, as she is especially anxious.
What is the mens rea in BELFON and TAYLOR?
The mens rea is direct intention ONLY as to causing grievous bodily harm or resisting or preventing arrest.
What constitutes direct intention in this context?
D had direct intention of really serious or serious harm when she attacked Y with a weapon.
What is required if there is intention to resist/prevent arrest?
D needs only to be subjectively reckless as to the harm.
What is the principle of transferred malice?
The transferred malice principle applies where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident.
Here, D will still be liable as the mens rea is transferred from X to V.
What does the principle of transferred malice state regarding similar crimes?
Only similar crimes can be transferred.
Here, D intended to cause property damage, but actually hurt V, and so cannot be found guilty.
What does joint enterprise and transferred malice imply?
It does not matter that D was not the one who actually injured V; all that matters is that D intended to hurt X, X intended to hurt D, and in fighting back with D, injured V.
What is required under the coincidence rule?
The actus reus and mens rea must coincide at least once.
Here, D had the mens rea of murder when he first stabbed V, but when D actually committed the actus reus when burying V alive, D did not have the mens rea because he thought V was dead. D will still be liable.
What is the conclusion regarding D’s guilt?
D is guilty.
What is the principle of a joint enterprise and transferred Malice?
It does not matter h that D was not the one who actually injured V all that matters is that d tintended to her x,x intended to hurt D and fighting back with d, V was injured
What is the coincidence rule?
The coincidence rule is that the actual reus and the men’s rea must coincide at least once(Fagan v MPC)
