GBH or wounding

Question 1

s.20

Answer 1

intention or recklessness to cause some harm or wounding, with or without a weapon.
liable for imprisonment for no more than 5years

Question 2

s.18

Answer 2

intention cause really serious harm or wounding, or intent to prevent the unlawful detention of any person.
liable to life imprisonment

Question 3

1. unlawful

Answer 3

there was an unlawful act. This means there was no consent and the action was not in self defence

Question 4

R v Melin

Answer 4

consent to an injection for botox that led to serious harm could not be consent if the person was not medically qualified and was deceived

Question 5

R v BM

Answer 5

defence of consent doesn’t apply to anything more than assault or battery.
D carried out body modifications including removal of an ear, nipple and division of someones tongue

Question 6

2. infliction (causation)

Answer 6

> factual causation - ‘‘but for’’ test
legal causation -more than minimal cause (kimsey)
thin skull rule (blaue)

Question 7

element three

Answer 7

Grievous bodily harm

Question 8

R v Bollom

Answer 8

bruising can amount to GBH
severe bruising is more serious in a baby - must take into account the age and health of V

Question 9

R v Burstow

Answer 9

V suffered serious depression from a result of silent and abusive phone calls, hate mail and stalking.
psychological harm can be GBH s.20

Question 10

R v Dica

Answer 10

D had unprotected sex with 2 women without telling them he was HIV positive and both women became infected.
giving consent based on false info isn’t consent.
infecting someone with a disease could be GBH

Question 11

R v Golding

Answer 11

serious harm didn’t have to be permanent or dangerous - his lies were also relevant.
gave partner incurable genital herpes

Question 12

Brown&Stratton

Answer 12

drunken intent has sufficient mens rea for specific intent offences.
really serious harm is objective, not down to Ds subjective opinion

Question 13

mens rea s.20

Answer 13

> intention
recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not
no need to foresee the specific injury

Question 14

mens rea s.18

Answer 14

> to do some GBH
resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detaining of any person
specific or oblique intention

Question 15

wounding

Answer 15

a very specific type of damage must be caused
Moriarty v Brooks - D was a publican, he argued with a customer over a disrupted payment and struck him causing a cut below the eye

Question 16

wounding s.20

Answer 16

> a break in the continuity in the skin (Moriarty v Brooks)
injury to person which the skin is broken

Question 17

wounding s.18

Answer 17

> more severe - a break in the continuity in the skin
in a serious/ life threatening area e.g. stomach, neck

Question 18

R v Taylor

Answer 18

intention to wound isn’t sufficient for mens rea of s.18

Question 19

DPP v smith

Answer 19

'’really serious harm’’ but doesn’t have to be life threatening

Question 20

saunders

Answer 20

harm doesn’t have to be really serious

Question 21

JCC v Eisenhower

Answer 21

V was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet
bleeding only occurred beneath the surface
held; didn’t amount to a wound