Section 188 - Wounding with Intent - wording
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for Term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to anyone, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person
Everyone is liable to imprisonment for Tim not exceeding seven years who, with intent to injure any person, or with reckless disregard it for the safety of others, wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person
R v Ashman - Commentary regarding gre joys bodily harm
Section 188 does not define grievous bodily harm. Formally it was said of this term that:
It is not necessary that such harm should be either permanent or dangerous, if it be such a serious lead to interfere with comfort or health it is sufficient
Director of public prosecutions v Smith (1961) - commentary regarding grievous bodily harm
And director of public prosecutions versus Smith 1961, the House of Lords could find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the words convey in their ordinary and natural meaning. The words only harm need no explanation while grievous means no more and no less than really serious
R v Metharam (1961) commentary regarding Grievous Bodily Harm
It is a misdirection therefore to adopt the Ashman formula and invite to the jury to find person guilty of an offence involving intent to do grievous Bodily harm if the only intent established is intent to interfere seriously with health or comfort
Wayne v Bolidston (1992) - commentary regarding GBH
In determining whether an injury amounts to bodily harm is this Siri to focus on the injury and its immediate consequences. The fact that the victim may have been left with only a cosmetic disability will be irrelevant if the immediate consequences of injury interfered temporarily with his or her health. It may also be Mr Siri to consider the nature of any treatment received and whether any part of the body was unable to perform its function is fully, either as a result of pain or otherwise
Commentary regarding “with intent” - GBH - general commentary
The onus of proving the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm rests on the prosecution. Such an intention is really found from direct evidence such as a statement by the defendant that he intended to cause really serious harm.
Albert v R (2011) - commentary regarding with intent - GBH
In Albert versus R, 2011, where the defendant discharged a shot gun at relatively close range at the lower part of the complainant’s body intending to hit him, and accepted at cross examination that deliberately shooting someone even in the legs would likely cause serious injury, the court had a little difficulty in concluding that an acquittal based on the lack of requisite intent was not a verdict reasonably open to the jury. On the undisputed facts grievous bodily harm from such I shot seems inevitable and the intention of the shooter. Usually proof on intention rests on circumstantial evidence including the overt acts and utterances of the defendant before, at or after the event, the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the act itself. The test is subjective and it is a misdirection for a jury to be told that a person must be taken to in teens the natural consequences of his or her act and that, because the defendant was really serious harm, therefore the consequence was intended
R v Belfon (1967) commentary regarding with intent - GBH
Proof of recklessness on the part of the defendant is not enough. It must be proved that the defendant did the acts in question with the intention of causing grievous bodily, and the fact that he or she had for saying that such harm was a likely consequence, or that the defendant had been reckless with a such Harm would result, does not constitute the necessary intent.
R v Hunt (1825). Commentary regarding with intent - GBH
It is not material that no great harm was occasioned to the victim. The wound, maiming, or disfiguration need not be grievous or really serious, if any causing at the defendant had the intent to cause really serious harm. The judges rules if there was any intent to do read this bodily harm, it was Immaterial whether grievous harm was done
Is to actual bottling harm all that is Mrs Siri is that the should be hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health comfort of the victim.
it need not be an injury of a permanent character; nor need it amounts to what would be considered a grievous body harm.
The bodily harm maybe internal or external, need not be permanent or dangerous, need not amount to maiming, disfigurement or disablement but it must be more than merely transitory and trifling
R v McCready (1978) - commentary regarding actus Reus. - GBH
Grievous bodily harm can be and frequently is caused otherwise then by wounding;
much less frequently but occasionally it can be caused by an act which is not an assault, for example by inducing a state of fear and another man’s mind which causes such a person to try and escape and, in doing so, to injure himself
The breaking of the skin would be commonly regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will be normally evidenced by flow of blood and, in its occurrence at the sight of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not the external. But there are cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissue maybe internal
Depriving another of the use of such of his members as may render him the less able in fighting, either to defend himself or to annoy his adversary
Disfigurement is external injury which Mars or alters the figure or appearance of a person. Disfigurement does not necessarily involve permanent injury or damage. Nor is proof of permanent injury required and proof of wounding, maiming, call grievous bodily harm
Define to injure
This term is defined in section 2(1) as to cause actual bodily harm, which phrase should be given its natural an ordinary meaning. Actual bodily harm does not require proof of physical injury and may include injury producing and hysterical or nervous condition. And injury need not be permanent, but it must be more than trifling or transitory.
Section 189 - injuring with intent. - wording
(1) . Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to anyone, injures any person
(2) . Everyone is liable to imprisonment for Tim not exceeding five years who, with intent to injure anyone or with reckless disregard for the safety of others injures any person
Injury Requirements - injuring
To injure means to cause actual bodily harm. As in the case of section 188, proof of in a salt is probably not necessary. Nor is it material that the injury occasions with the requisite intent is not serious bodily harm.
Mens Rea - injuring
The offences under the section defer from those contained in section 188 only in the level of injury actually inflicted the mens rea required by the two sections is identical
Section 191 - aggravated wounding or injury
(1) everyone is liable to imprisonment for Term not exceeding 14 years:
(A) to Commit or facilitate the commission of any imprisonable offence or
(B) to avoid the detection of himself or of any other person in the commission of any imprisonable offence or
(C) to avoid the rest of the seller take the flight of himself or of any other person upon the commission or attended commission of any imprisonable offence
Wounds, names, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person, or stupefies or renders unconscious any person, or by any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance
(2) everyone is liable to imprisonment for Term not exceeding seven years who, with any such intense as aforesaid Injures any person
Define stupefies - aggravated wounding or injury
To cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime
Define violent means - aggravated wounding or injury
With a violent means have been used, and with that the other person was rendered in capable of resistance, our questions of fact for the jury. The words in invited means whatever we held to be construed according to the primary and natural meaning, and they have threatened to shoot another with a loaded revolver constituted violent means in rendered the other incapable of resistance. Without a sweet is capable of being minded means and may render the person three tent and capable of resistance depends upon the assessment by the jury.