Section 20 oapa - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

section 20 of the oapa...

Description

Section 20 criminalises malicious wounding and/or inflicting GBH, with at least foresight of some bodily harm. 20. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of [an offence triable either way] and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for five years.

7.5.1 Actus reus of s20 The two ways of completing the actus reus of section 20 are through wounding and/or inflicting GBH. 7.5.1.1 Wounding To constitute a wound, V’s skin must be broken by, for example, stabbing.66 The standard case will involve V’s outer skin, but wounding will also be found where D breaks internal membranes that are similar to the outer skin as, for example, where D punches V and splits the inside of her cheek or lip.67 There are limits, however. First, the whole skin (every layer) must be broken. For example, a scratch that breaks the ‘surface of the skin’ but not every layer will not amount to a wound.68 Secondly, wounding cannot be purely internal. In Wood,69 for example, despite causing V’s broken collarbone, as the skin remained intact, there was no wound. Doubt remains as to whether wounding can be caused by omission, and a case of this kind would be rare. However, it is likely that omissions liability is possible. For example, D omits to put sharp knives in a safe place having foreseen the possibility that V—a young child— might injure herself with them, breaching a duty to remove the danger created. D is likely to commit the section 20 offence by omission if injury results. 7.5.1.2 Inflicting grievous bodily harm In the absence of a statutory definition, GBH has been interpreted by the House of Lords to mean ‘serious bodily harm’.70 Thus, V’s injuries must be more serious than ABH, which requires only ‘bodily harm’. However, it is clear that GBH does not require injury to be permanent or life-threatening,71 with even brief unconsciousness being potentially sufficient.72 Classic examples include broken bones and disfigurement. It is also clear that serious psychiatric injuries may amount to GBH, as discussed previously in Ireland.73 However, as with ABH, such injury must amount to a recognised psychiatric condition; simple fear or distress is insufficient.

Extra detail … As with section 47, when deciding on the degree of harm caused, the court will consider the totality of V’s injuries. Thus, it is not necessary to demonstrate that V suffered ABH or GBH as a result of a single act (eg punch), provided that the harm was sustained from one attack or relevant period.74 Unlike the section 18 offence (discussed below) which requires D to ‘cause’ GBH, section 20 uses the term ‘inflict’. This has given rise to some disagreement about whether the two words require different tests, for example whether ‘inflict’ implies that D must cause injury through an assault or battery, as with section 47.75 However, it is now settled law that

‘inflict’ should be interpreted in exactly the same way as ‘cause’: D’s conduct must be shown to have caused the harm to V applying the standard rules of causation, and there is no extra requirement of assault or battery.

Assessment matters … There are two distinct ways to bring about the actus reus of section 20: by wounding or by inflicting GBH. It should be remembered that although these will often overlap (eg D stabs V in the stomach), this will not always be the case. Where D breaks one of V’s bones, for example, but does not break the skin, this is GBH and not a wound.76 Conversely, a minor wound (eg injection from a needle) will amount to a wound but not GBH. Thus, when applying section 20 to the facts of a problem question, it is good practice to identify which (if not both) are caused by D. 7.5.2 Mens rea of s20 Whether the allegation is of wounding, causing GBH, or both, section 20 specifies a mens rea that D must be acting ‘maliciously’. This has been interpreted to mean ‘intentionally or recklessly’.77 However, although intent or foresight of a risk is required, section 20 does not require D to intend or foresee the full extent of the harms caused (ie wounding or GBH). Rather, liability merely requires D to intend or foresee that some bodily harm might be caused, not necessarily amounting to a wounding or GBH. As Diplock LJ explained in Mowatt:78 . . . the word ‘maliciously’ does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person. . . . [But] it is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in [s20], ie, a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result. It should be remembered, however, that intent or foresight of some harm is still necessary for liability. For example, D will not commit a section 20 offence if her intention is simply to frighten V, where D does not foresee the possibility of V suffering injury as a result....