Wounding or causing GBH with intent Flashcards
What is the statutory offence of wounding or causing GBH with intent?
s.18 of the OAPA 1861
Which offence is considered more serious, s.18 or s.20?
s.18
How can it be seen that s.18 is more serious than s.20?
as s.18 has a higher maximum punishment
What is the maximum imprisonment sentence under s.20 and s.18?
5 years
up to life
What type of offence is s.20 and s.18?
s. 20=triable either way
s. 18=indictable (crown court)
What is the statutory deffiniton of s.18 OAPA 1861?
Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or cause any GBH to another person with intent to do GBH or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of any person
In what two ways can the actus reus of s.18 be committed?
- wounding
- causing GBH
The meanings of ‘wound’ and ‘GBH” are the same as what?
s.20 OAPA
Why is the word “cause GBH” wide?
so that it is only necessary to prove that the defendant’s act were the substantial cause of the wound or GBH
What type of intent is s.18?
specific intent offence
For the mens rea of s.18, the defendant must be proved to have intended what two things?
- to do GBH
- resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person
What intention is not enough for the mens rea as stated by Taylor?
to wound
What happened in the case of Taylor?
Photographs made it impossible to tell how deep the wound was on V’s back. Medical evidence could not prove intention for causing serious injury. D was convicted of s.18 offence. COA quashed on the basis that an intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s.18.
Photographs made it impossible to tell how deep the wound was on V’s back. Medical evidence could not prove intention for causing serious injury. D was convicted of s.18 offence. COA quashed on the basis that an intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s.18.
What case is this?
Taylor
Although the word ‘maliciously’ appears in s.18, it has been held that this adds nothing to the mens rea of this section where what is intended?
GBH
What 2 things are not enough for the mens rea of s.18?
intention to wound or
recklessness
Why is recklessness not enough for the mens rea of s.18?
as it is a specific intent crime
Intention has the same meaning as shown for the leading case in what section?
murder
What case shows the actus reus for s.20, a direct or indirect act or omisson and no need to prove an assault?
martin 1881
Burstow 1998
What is the mens rea for s.20 and the case which demonstrates this?
Intention or subjective recklessness as to cause some injury
Parmenter
What is the consequence required for s.20 offence?
either a pound or GBH
What is the offence for a s.20 offence?
maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH
What is the offence for s.18?
wounding or causing GBH with intent
What is the actus reus for a s.18 offence?
a direct or indirect act or omission which causes V injury
What is the consequence required for a s.18 offence?
a wound of GBH
What is the mens rea of a s.18 offence?
specific intention to cause GBH or specific intention to resist or prevent arrest plus recklessness as to cause injury
As decided in Moloney, what is not intention?
foresight of consequences, it is only evidence from which intention can be inferred or found
Following which 2 cases can intention not be found unless the harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant realised that this was so.
Nedrick and Woollin
What did the cases of Nedrick and Woollin say intention could only be found?
when the harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and the defendant realised that this was so.
When is the level of intention lower for the s.18 offence?
when the defendant is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention
What type of intent must the prosecution prove if someone resisted or prevented arrest?
must prove specific intent
Although the prosecution must prove that D had specific intent to resist or prevent arrest, so far as the injury they need only prove that ..?
he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a would or injury.
Although the prosecution must prove that D had specific intent to resist or prevent arrest, so far as the injury they need only prove that he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a would or injury.
What case decided this?
Morrison
What happened in the case of Morrison?
D dived through a window to resist arrest, dragging the police officer with him. Officer’s face was badly cut as a result. The jury was directed that an objective test of recklessness was enough to convict the defendant under section 18 OAPA, conviction quashed.
