Section 20 Wounding Flashcards
What does Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 cover?
D may be liable for unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH).
What is the ACTUS REUS for Section 20?
An act or omission causing a wound or an act or omission causing GBH.
How is a wound defined?
A wound is defined as breaking both layers of the skin, as per EISENHOWER, which includes deep cuts, stab wounds, and bleeding.
How is GBH defined?
GBH is defined as really serious harm (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS), which includes broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability, and severe psychiatric harm.
Do V’s injuries need to be permanent or life-threatening?
No, V’s injuries need not be permanent or life-threatening, and V’s age will be taken into account as in Bollom.
What satisfies factual causation in Section 20 cases?
‘But for’ D’s actions, V would not have been injured (PAGETT, WHITE, HUGHES).
What determines if D’s action was the legal cause of injury?
D’s action must be the operating and substantial cause, meaning it was a significant, more than minimal cause (Smith, Pagett).
What can break the chain of causation?
A novus actus interveniens can break the chain if it was not reasonably foreseeable.
What are examples of intervening acts that may break the chain?
Victim’s own act, such as jumping into the road, may break the chain if unforeseeable (Corbett, Roberts, Kennedy).
What does Pagett concern?
Pagett concerned a third party act. Here, [X’s actions were unforeseeable, and will break the chain OR X’s actions were foreseeable, and will not break the chain].
What is medical negligence in relation to 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 relation to harm?
The MENS REA is intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm, not the wound/GBH itself. Here D [CHOOSE ONE: EITHER D has direct intention to cause some harm, OR D was subjectively reckless].
What is the transferred malice principle?
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?
The principle of transferred malice states that only similar crimes can be transferred. Here, [eg, D intended to cause property damage, but actually hurt V], and so cannot be found guilty.
What is the principle of joint enterprise and transferred malice?
Under the principle of joint enterprise and transferred malice, 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 the coincidence rule?
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].
What is the conclusion regarding D’s guilt?
TO CONCLUDE, D is [guilty].
