GBH and Wounding Flashcards
NFO
Which act?
s.20/18 OAPA 1861
Definition of GBH under s.20
“whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any GBH upon another person, with or without any weapon or instrument”
Liable to maximum 5 years
Definition of GBH under s.18
“whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means wound or cause GBH upon any other person with intent to do GBH or intent to resist arrest”
Liable for Life imprisonment
Elements of GBH
- Unlawful Act
- Infliction
- GBH
- Unlawful Act
No consent from the V
R V Melin -injection to Botox which led to serious harm, V consented, but did not give genuine consent as person was NOT medically qualified
R V BM - tattoo artist who performed body modifications
- removal of ear
- splitting of tounge
caused GBH (consent was no defence - cannot consent to s.20)
- Infliction (Causation)
Normal Causation rules apply
Fatual
Legal (operating and substatial)
Intervening act
Thin-skull rule
V’s own act
Break in chain of causation
- GBH
What is GBH?
>DPP V Smith - “really serious harm” but doesnt have to be life threatening
>R v saunders - “serious harm” doesnt have to include the word “really”
Example Cases;
R V Bollom - bruising could amount to GBH (severity of the injuries should be assesed against V’s age)
R V Burstow - “inflict” doesn’t require a technical assault or battery, SERIOUS Psychiatric harm can amount to GBH
- D carried out 8month campaign of harrassment (eg. silent/abusive phone calls, hate mail, stalking) = V suffered severe depression as a result
R V Dica - infecting someone with HIV is GBH
R V Golding - infecting someone with biological diseases is GBH (herpes)
R V Bollam
17month yr old child had bruising on abdomen, both arms and left leg - Conviction quashed, substituted for ABH
CoA still stated that serious bruising could amount to GBH
R V Burstow
- D carried out 8 month campaign of harassment (eg. silent/abusive phone calls, hate mail, stalking) = V suffered severe depression as a result
MR of s.20 GBH
MALICIOUSLY intention to do the GBH caused
OR
recklessness as to whether GBH would occur (still foreseen the risk, but gone onto take the risk anyway)
R V Parmenter -
R V Parmenter
D injured 3 moths old baby after throwing child in air and catching him - had done this with older children , didnt realise the risk with baby - GBH conviction quashed as no evidence that D forsaw the risk of ingury = ABH instead
MR for s.18 GBH
specific intent offence
intention to do GBH
or intention to prevent detension
Taylor 2009 - Intention to wound isnt enough for s.18 MR
Taylor 2009
Intention to wound isnt enough for s.18 MR
V found with scratches on his face and a stab wound on his back.
They were unable to prove if D intended serious injury as it was only surface scratches and it was impossible to tell the depth of the wound.
D was substituted to a conviction under s20, as the jury were misdirected, as under s18, intention to cause harm is not enough for the offence.
Wounding
A cut in the continuity of the whole skin with blood loss
s.20 Wounding
Injury to a person by which the skin is broken (cut in the continuity of the whole skin) and there is bleeding)
Morarity V Brookes
