Actual Bodily Harm
Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides:“Whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be ........ (liable to punishment).”
The actus reus of Actual Bodily Harm
There are two elements:
(i) an assault or a battery
The assault can be the common law offence of either assault or battery described above. The assault or battery must cause the bodily harm. Therefore it is necessary to consider the chain of causation at this point.
(ii) actual bodily harm
The assault or battery must cause the actual bodily harm. Actual bodily harm has been widely interpreted, including not just physical injury but also psychological injury such as shock.
R v Miller, in which the defendant was charged with the abh of his wife, Judge Lynskey said.
“Actual bodily harm .... includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor.” Because a nervous condition came within this definition, the defendant was convicted of abh.
R v Chan-Fook - “The word harm is a synonym for injury ..... the injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.... Bodily injury may include injury to any of those parts of his body responsible for his mental and other faculties.”
The definition of actual bodily harm was extended to hair being cut without the consent of the victim in DPP v Smith , where the court determined that hair was to be treated as part of the body and noted that cutting a woman’s hair without her consent is a ‘serious matter amounting to actual (not trivial or insignificant) bodily harm’. It was also stated, obiter, that if paint or a similar material was put on the hair, that could also be actual bodily harm. In T v DPP loss of consciousness, even momentarily, was held to be ABH.
The Assault or battery must cause (occasion) the ABH – indirect ABH
DPP v K -It was held that the application of force could be indirectly applied. D was found guilty of ABH.
The mens rea of actual bodily harm
The mens rea is intention or Cunningham recklessness for the assault or the battery. The defendant does not have to intend or foresee any actual bodily harm.
R v Savage - The HL ruled that the mens rea for the offence of assault occasioning abh was the same as for assault or battery
S20 and
S18 OAPA 1861 - cases
Below is a list of cases you should
use when answering a scenario question on S18 and S20.
S20 Definition:
D causes the V GBH or a wound
S18 Definition:
D causes the V GBH or a wound
IMPORTANT: If you think it is a really serious injury you only need to
apply either S18 or S20, not both (unless you are unsure).
NOTE: THE ACTUS REUS OF S18 AND S20 IS EXACTLY THE SAME WITH SAME CASES
ACTUS REUS of S18 and S20
|
Case Name
|
Facts
|
One fact to use in an answer
|
Law that must be used in exam answer
|
|
DPP v Smith 1961
|
Not important
|
The meaning of GBH
|
Grievous Bodily
Harm means really serious harm.
This includes
broken bones and internal injuries.
|
|
R v Burstow
|
A woman was subjected to a campaign of
harassment by her former lover. There
was no direct contact. This led to her
suffering severe depression.
|
The HL decided that causing severe
depression can be classed as GBH.
|
Causing severe
depression can be classed as GBH even if the D has had no direct contact with
the V.
|
|
R v
Martin
|
The defendant placed a bar across the
entrance to a theatre and then caused panic by shouting “Fire!”. Many people inside the theatre were
injured, some seriously, in their stampede to get out. Martin was convicted of gbh for the
injuries that his actions caused.
|
|
Grievous Bodily
harm can be caused indirectly.
|
|
JCC
v Eisenhower
|
The defendant hit the victim in the eye
with a pellet from an air rifle, rupturing a blood vessel and causing
internal bleeding, but not breaking the skin.
The offence of wounding had not therefore been committed.
|
|
A
wound was defined a break in the surface of the skin. A graze is therefore insufficient, as is
the causing of internal bleeding. It must be a serious wound.
|
MENS REA OF S20
|
Case Name
|
Facts
|
One fact to use in an answer
|
Law that must be used in exam answer
|
|
R v Mowatt
|
The defendant had attacked a police
officer and subsequently convicted under Section 20. He appealed arguing that he had not
foreseen serious harm.
|
Does the P have to prove D foresaw
serious harm? No only some harm.
|
D only has to
foresee some harm. The harm only needs to small. It is enough for the
prosecution to prove that the defendant either intended (Mohan) or was
subjectively reckless about causing some harm (Cunningham).
|
MENS REA OF S18
|
Case Name
|
Facts
|
One fact to use in an answer
|
Law that must be used in exam answer
|
|
R v Belfon
|
The defendant slashed his victim with a
razor causing severe wounds to his face and chest. He was convicted under Section 18. The trial judge had told the jury to
convict if they were satisfied that the defendant had foreseen gbh as a
probable result of his actions. He
appealed. His appeal was upheld
|
The prosecution had to
establish that it was the defendant’s purpose to do some gbh, and
recklessness was not sufficient.
|
The P have to
prove the D had a direct intention to cause specific harm or a wound
OR
P has to prove
an indirect intention to cause specific harm or a wound.
|
|
R v Woollin
|
The D violently shook his 3-month-old
baby and then threw him across the room against his pram. The baby died. The
D admitted later that the baby had hit the floor hard, but he didn’t think
that it would kill him, although he accepted that there was a risk of injury.
|
The P must prove that
the D foresaw the risk of really serious harm or a wound as a virtual
certainty.
|
P must prove
that GBH or a wound was a virtually certain outcome of the D’s actions
AND
P must prove
that D appreciated that his actions would cause GBH or a wound as a virtual
certainty.
|
TASK: Fill in any blanks above.
