Malicious wounding or inflicting GBH

Question 1

Unlawful

Answer 1

R v Horwood: GBH/wounding done in self-defence will be lawful

Question 2

Wound

Answer 2

C v Eisenhower: must be a break in the continuity of the whole skin; rupture of an internal blood vessel is not a wound

Question 3

GBH

Answer 3

DPP v Smith: “really serious harm”
R v Hill: objective test for the jury to decide whether it’s GBH
R v Burstow: identifiable medical condition (psychological harm) may amount to GBH
R v Grundy: totality of the injuries must be considered
R v Bollom: impact on the particular V should be taken into account e.g. babies are more vulnerable

Question 4

“Inflicting” GBH

Answer 4

R v Burstow: ‘cause’ and ‘inflict’ are not synonymous but “in the context of the Act of 1861 there is no radical divergence between the meaning of the two words”
- Lord Steyn rejected the argument that infliction requires an application of force; hence a serious psychological condition could be inflicted by D pursuing harassment against V

Question 5

Malice (intention or recklessness)

Answer 5

R v Savage and Parmenter: established the MR for malicious wounding; “in order to establish an offence under section 20 the prosecution must prove either that the defendant intended or that he actually foresaw that his act could cause harm”