ABH and GBH - Lecture notes 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Actual Bodily harm and Grievous Bodily Harm...

Description

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861

1. Actual Bodily Harm

Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.47 ‘Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable… Actus reus elements   

Any assault Occasioning Actual bodily harm

Occasioning The normal rules of causation apply to determine whether ABH to V was occasioned by D’s assault. R v Roberts (1972). Actual Bodily Harm R v Donovan (1934) ‘Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling’ R v Chan-Fook (1994) ‘The word ‘harm’ is a synonym for injury. The word ‘actual’ indicates that the injury (although there is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant) Examples of ABH     

R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes DPP v K (1990)- acid burns R v Chan-Fook (1994)- psychiatric injury, but not mere emotions T v DPP (2003)- loss of consciousness DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting V’s hair

Mens rea of s.47 The mens rea of s.47 is exactly the same as assault and battery. R v Savage (1991): ‘The prosecution is not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused.’

2. Grievous Bodily Harm

Offences Against the Person Act, s.20 ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously inflict any grievous bodily harm on another person shall be liable’ Actus reus elements  

Inflict Grievous bodily harm

Inflict R v Ireland; R v Burstow (1997) ‘For all practical purposes there is no difference between these two words… the words ‘cause’ and ‘inflict’ may be taken to be interchangeable’ Grievous bodily harm DPP v Smith (1960) ‘I can find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the words convey in their ordinary meaning. Bodily harm needs no explanation, and grievous means no more and no less than really serious’ R v Golding (2014) ‘It is not necessary that the harm should be either permanent or dangerous. It is not a precondition that V should require treatment or that the harm should have lasting consequences… ultimately, the assessment of harm done in an individual case in a contested trial will be a matter for the jury, applying contemporary social standards’ Significance of V’s age R v Bollom (2014) ‘In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on the individual Examples of GBH        

R v Billinghurst (1978)- broken jaw R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns R v Barnes (2005)- broken nose R v Brady (2006)- broken neck R v Ratnasabapathy (2009)- brain damage R v Hill (2015)- broken cheekbone

Psychiatric harm R v Ireland; R v Burstow (1997) ‘One can nowadays quite naturally speak of inflicting psychiatric injury R v Dhaliwal (2006) In this case the Court of Appeal ruled hat psychological injury, not amounting to recognizable psychiatric illness, did NOT amount to GBH. R v Golding (2014) ‘We leave out of account V’s evidence as to the anguish she suffered as a result of learning of her infection. As Dhaliwal makes clear, the ambit of bodily harm is restricted to recognizable psychiatric illness and does not cover psychological disturbance’ Biological harm The Court of Appeal has held that the transmission of HIV through unprotected sex amounts to GBH:    

R v Dica (2004) R v Konzani (2005) R v B (2006) R v Rowe (2018)

R v Golding (2014) ‘As Dica indicates, a person who is suffering from a sexual disease and who has sexual intercourse with a partner, not intending deliberately to infect her, but knowing that she was unaware of his condition, may be guilty of recklessly inflicting GBH Mens rea of s.20 R v Mowatt (1967) ‘In s.20 it is quite unnecessary that D foresaw that his unlawful act might cause… a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he foresaw that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result’ 3. Wounding

JCC v Eisenhower (1983) ‘It must be the whole skin that is broken… referring to the fact that the human skin has two layers, an outer layer called the epidermis and an underlayer which is called the dermis. It is therefore not enough that there had been an abrasion affecting only the epidermis. There had to be a break in the continuity of the whole skin

4. Wounding with intent

Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.18 Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause GBH to any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent the lawful apprehension of any person, shall be guilty Actus reus elements The actus reus of a s.18 offence is identical to the actus reus of a s.20 offence. The difference between the two is the mens rea required. Mens rea of s.18 R v Taylor (2009) ‘An intent to wound is insufficient. There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. It Is not necessary for us to set out why that was so because the statutory language is clear. Alternative verdicts   

R v Mandair (1994): on a s.18 charge, a conviction under s.20 is available as an alternative verdict R v Savage (1991): on a s.20 charge, a conviction under s.47 is available as an alternative verdict R v Tierney (2009): on a s.47 charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative verdict....