|
Offence |
Actus reus |
Mens rea |
Max Penalty |
| 1.Causing grievous bodily harm with intent - s18
of the OAP Act 1861 |
Causing grievous bodily harm - e.g D breaks V's legs or permanently blinds V |
Intending to cause grievous bodily harm or intending
to resist/prevent arrest |
Life |
| 2.Wounding with intent - s18 of the OAP Act 1861 |
Wounding - e.g D stabs V |
As above |
Life |
| 3.Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm - s20
of the OAP Act 1861 |
Inflicting grievous bodily harm - e.g D breaks V's legs or permanently blinds
V |
Foresight that some harm might result (Savage;
Parmenter (1992) |
5 years |
| 4.Malicious wounding - s20 of the OAP Act 1861 |
Wounding - e.g D stabs V |
As above |
5 years |
| 5.Battery occasioning actual bodily harm - s47 OAP
1861 |
Same as battery(below) plus
V suffers actual bodily harm as a result of the assault
- D pushes V who as a result falls over and
suffers some bodily injury |
The same as for battery (below) (Savage;
Parmenter (1992) |
5 years |
| 6. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – s47 |
Same as battery (below) plus
V suffers actual bodily harm as a result of the battery
– D threatens V who as a result falls over
and suffers some bodily injury |
The same as for assault (below) |
5 years |
| 7.Battery - s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 |
Inflicting unlawful force V - e.g. D punches V |
Intentionally / recklessly inflicting unlawful force
on V (Venna (1976) |
6 months |
| 8.Assault - s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 |
Causing V to apprehend immediate unlawful force -
e.g. D threatens to strike V |
Intentionally / recklessly causing V to apprehend
immediate unlawful force (Venna (1976) |
6 months |
There can be few criminal law exams that do not contain
at least one question requiring consideration of the non
fatal offences against the person. And,as questions most
commonly raise issues of liability in respect of more than
one of the offences it is important to know the relationship
between them. In the table the offences are arranged in
order of seriousness:
Notes
The following is given as guidance to answering questions
raising the above offences.
If V did not suffer an injury.
Neither assault nor battery require that V suffers an injury.
The remaining offences do. So if it is clear from
the facts of the question that V suffered no injury then
your discussion should be restricted to liability for assault
and/or battery.
If V did or may have suffered an injury.
If D has caused V to suffer a serious injury then
consider liability under s18 and/or s20. But note that if
D lacked or may have lacked the mens rea for both those
offences then liability for s 47 should also be considered.
If D has caused V to suffer a non serious injury
( and not a wound ) then consider liability under
s 47 only.
If V has suffered a wound, whether serious or
not, then consider liability under s 18 and/or s 20. But
as above note that if D lacked or may have lacked the mens
rea for both those offences then liability for s 47 should
also be considered.
Important: Examiners often do not disclose the
extent of injuries sustained by V. This is done deliberately.
In such cases you are required to explain the alternative
outcomes depending on the level of injuries sustained. You
should provide alternative answers starting with a consideration
of liability for the most serious offence consistent with
the disclosed facts. Always work down the table.
That is, if the extent of injuries is not disclosed you
should consider liability for the offences contrary to s18
and s20 and then for an offence contrary to s47.
But, as always, use your common sense. If the examiner
says that D hit V several times over the head with a heavy
hammer then, even if the injuries are not disclosed, it
is probably safe to assume that V suffered serious injuries.
Bodily harm
Bodily harm is not restricted to harm to the 'skin, flesh
or bones' and includes psychiatric injuries.
Grievous bodily harm. It is not necessary that
the injuries are life threatening. The CPS charging standards
give the following examples. Injury resulting in permanent
disability or permanent loss of sensory function; injury
which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement;
broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured
skull; compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs,
etc; injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually
necessitating a transfusion; injuries resulting in lengthy
treatment or incapacity; serious psychiatric injury.
Actual bodily harm. The CPS charging standards
give examples of injuries which would normally be charged
as actual bodily harm. These include: loss or breaking of
tooth or teeth; extensive or multiple bruising; displaced
broken nose; minor fractures; minor, but not merely superficial,
cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g.
a cut needing stitches).
Mens rea
Again, the examiner, deliberately, may not have disclosed
the intent with which D acted. If that is the case, explain
the alternative outcomes. Thus, if the question states that
D caused V a serious injury but does not disclose his intent
then you should explain what is required for a conviction
under s 18 and a conviction under s 20. If there is a possibility
that neither mens rea requirement is satisfied, the ingredients
of liability for an offence under s 47 should be explained.
Mens rea of s 18. There are six forms of this
offence. Note that with both 'malicious wounding with intent
to do gbh' or 'maliciously causing gbh with intent to do
gbh' the element of maliciousness is redundant and incorporated
within the requirement of intention to do gbh. Intention
to do gbh and intention alone will suffice. With the four
remaining variants of the offence, in addition to an intention
to resist or prevent lawful arrest it must be proved that
D foresaw that harm would result. It is not clear whether
D must have foreseen grievous bodily harm or whether foresight
of any harm will suffice. [Morrison (1989) Cr App R 17;
Bryson (1985) Crim L.R. 669]
Mens rea of s 20 This offence requires proof that
D foresaw that some harm might result from his
actions. You should demonstrate to the examiner that you
understand that it is not necessary to prove that D was
aware that serious bodily harm would result. [Savage;
Parmenter [1991] 4 All ER 698; Mowatt [1968] 1QB 421]
Mens rea of s 47 Note that this offence requires
no more than the mens rea of an assault or a battery. You
should make it clear to the examiner that you know that
there is no need to prove that D intended or was reckless
as to causing actual bodily harm. [Savage; Parmenter [1991]
4 All ER 698]
|
