In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. Actual bodily harm. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, The normal rules of causation apply to dete, is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so tr, Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. R v Bollom (2004) Which case decided that assault can be GBH if the victim inflicts GBH upon themselves in order to escape the defendant? This was decided in R v Burstow, where the victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant. S20 cases Flashcards | Quizlet The intention element of the mens rea is important in relation to where a wound occurs as it shows causing a wound with intention merely to wound as per the Eisenhower definition will not suffice. For the purposes of this element of the actus reus it must first be shown that the harm was grievous. (i) Intention to do some grievous bodily harm or (ii) with intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. Flashcards. AR for battery = 'ABH is harm or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort' - hysterical and nervous condition created by Miller from his beating, amounting to ABH, ABH/GBH can be psychiatric (affecting the brain) - no need for the harm to be visible, not the case with psychological issues -rang people then was silent, psychiatric problems can constitute ABH, not psychological - no evidence that he had assaulted her, causing ABH, the great stress that she had suffered lead to her suicide, this was insufficient, mens rea for ABH, just intent/recklessness for underlying assault or battery - intended to pour beer over women, using constructive liability she had the intent to cause the harm in ABH (cut by the glass), GBH is 'really serious' bodily harm - with policeman chasing him on Bonnet, D knocked policemen into path of oncoming driver, killing - used virtual certainty test for murder (what reasonable person), whether bodily harm is grievous is based on the individual - D convicted of GBH under s.18 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter - assess individual situation - could not prove it was all from one offence, lesser offence of ABH was used, harm need not be permanent or dangerous and is done in individual cases, psychiatric harm can amount to bodily harm, word inflict means 'cause' can be direct or direct -stalked her, had serious condition, those who recklessly transmit HIV and inflict GBH w/o consent is guilty under s.20 (only liable if foresaw possibility of passing on GBH) (however small) - despite no assault battery GBH made out, did not intend to maliciously poison - did not foresee, was just wanting money from gas meter - no ABH/GBH, to be liable under s.20 must intend/foresee SOME harm (not full extent) - did not foresee ANY harm, lacked mens rea, but did intend battery so can be liable under s.47 - not as hard as s.20 to prove - MUST IN OWN MIND FORESEE), consent only stands as a defence when the activity was carried out for good reason e.g. PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. When expanded it provides a list of search options that will switch the search inputs to match the current selection. Looking to the enactment year of the Offences Against the Persons Act, which was back in 1861, provides some explanation as to why the two are treated with the same severity. When that level of harm is inflicted on a person it is often left to fate as to whether or not it will prove fatal. Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily Often such injuries did get infected and lead to death. 25% off till end of Feb! The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. Grievous bodily harm (GBH) and Wounding are the most serious of the non-fatal offences against the person, charged under s.18 and s.20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. This simply sets out that you cannot be guilty of wounding or inflicting GBH on yourself. In R v Johnson (Beverley) [2016] EWCA Crim 10; [2016] 4 WLR 57, at para. If the offence Also the sentencing The defendant and his friend were out in the early hours of the morning. Due to his injury, he may experience memory Lastly a prison sentence-prison Such injuries would have been less serious on a grown adult, and the jury could properly allow for that. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 . MR don't need to foresee serious injury, just some . person shall be liable, For all practical purposes there is no difference between these two words the words cause and In R v Bollom, it was also decided that the age and health of the victim should play a part in assessing the severity of the injuries caused. Grievous bodily harm/Wounding is also defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of R v Mohan (1976) Golding v REGINA Introduction 1. Case in Focus: R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484. Finally, a battery can also be caused by an omission. R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 Whether a jury may consider a victim's particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was . To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: Free law resources to assist you with your LLB or SQE studies! It wasnt until the defendant decided to leave the car there that the battery occurred. R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. It can be an act of commission or act of omission. Or can be reckless if high risk and consent is not sought for that risk R v Konzani 2005 For a s18 wounding charge to be bought the defendant must have intended really serious harm. The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partners seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting Vs hair. Age and frailty are factors that can be considered when deciding whether injuries are enough to be GBH. R v Bollom 19 - Flashcards in A Level and IB Law - The Student Room Fundamental accounting principles 24th edition wild solutions manual, How am I doing. The draft Bill actually sets out a definition of injury in order to provide clear and specific, legally binding guidance as to what this entails. Consider that on a literal interpretation a paper cut could constitute a wound which is clearly vastly less serious than the level of harm encompassed by GBH so it seems wrong that they are classed as equally serious for the purposes of charging! For an essay question you may be asked whether you feel the two should be charged under the same offence given the difference in severity. R v Bollom D harmed a baby VS CHARACTERISTICS CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT R v Taylor's V was found with scratches but medical evidence couldn't tell how bad they were. be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how. Created by. Should we take into consideration how vulnerable the victim is? R v Lewis (1974) Which case decided that if GBH is used to escape arrest, it can be raised from S.20 GBH to S.18 GBH? R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. A fine and compensation-fines are the most common It was a decision for the jury. Consent is no defence to inflicting actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or wounding i.e., ss 20 and 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) The act itself does not constitute guilt For example, dangerous driving. The crime Janice commited is serious and with a high The defendant was not familiar with being around children and had no idea how to handle a young baby. R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. A wound is classified as a cut or break in the continuity of the skin. Reduce Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily. Bodily harm needs no explanation, and grievous means no Assault and Battery Cases | Digestible Notes In finding whether that particular defendant foresaw the GBH as a virtually certain consequence of his actions, the jury are required to make this decision on an assessment of all of the evidence put before them. The Commons, PART 1 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. This was the situation until R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54. Learn. This is well illustrated in the case of R v Nelson, where the Court of Appeal stated that What is required for common assault is for the defendant to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck. that V should require treatment or that the harm should have lasting consequences ultimately, the Restorative justice gives victims the chance to tell offenders about the impact of their crime The offence of battery is also defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. COULDNT ESTABLISH WOUNDING R v Morrison D seized and arrested by female p.o., d dragged her out of a smashed window DIDNT RESIST ARREST Reform and rehabilitate offenders by changing an offenders not necessary for us to set out why that was so because the statutory language is clear. However, a cut could theoretically suffice where the greater level of harm was the intention. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. His appeal was allowed, holding that the correct interpretation of maliciously for the purposes of s.20 is intent or a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm and being reckless as to that harm occurring. This makes it clear that for the purposes of a s.18 offence indirect harm will definitely suffice. The Court explained inflict merely required force being applied to the body of the victim causing them to suffer GBH. The actus reus for Beth would Assault Flashcards | Quizlet This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. As the amount of hair was substantial, the Divisional Court decided that the hair-cutting should amount to ABH. Battery occurs whena person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. A shop keeper was held liable even though it was his employee who had sold the lottery ticket to the child. Should the particular circumstances and vulnerabilities of a victim be considered by a jury in determining whether injuries which may usually be viewed as assault or actual bodily harm could be prosecuted as a more severe offence. 2. This can be established by applying the objective test and surrounding case law to assess whether the harm is really serious as per the Smith definition. The meaning of the word inflict has caused some confusion over the years. The difference between Such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. R v Briggs [2004] Crim LR 495. any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent