Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm which the Section 20 OAPA 1861. According to the legislation of UK government, it states, “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence or shall be liable… to imprisonment for not more than 5 years.“
In the definition, unlawful means that it offends the law or it is without consent or the defendant acted without lawful justification. According to the Lord Diplock in R v Mowatt, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some
…show more content…
The defendant is charged with wounding or grievous bodily harm. If the wound has also inflicted grievous bodily harm, then the prosecution must choose from the two offences, depending on which reflects the true nature of the assault. (AQA A2 Law, 2013). Furthermore, the psychiatric harm can also counted as grievous bodily harm if it is sufficiently serious. The defendant foresaw that the victim might suffer some harm, it is not necessary to show that the defendant intended or foresaw that the victim would suffer form grievous bodily harm. There are some cases that we can refer …show more content…
The court held that defendant’s unlawful act was sufficiently foreseeable resulted and he finally convicted by Section 20 OPAP 1861.
In R v Bollom (2004), the defendant inflicted on his partner's 17-month-old daughter. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. He appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the judge should have directed the jury that in assessing whether the injuries were serious enough to amount to grievous bodily harm they should not take into account the age of the victim.
For the mens rea of Section 20 OAPA 1861, it refers to maliciously with intention or by subjective recklessness wound or inflict grievous bodily harm upon any other person.
The case that comes up is R v Mowatt (1976), the defendant was out in the early hours of the morning with another. The other snatched £5 from the complainant and ran off. The complainant chased the other and when he was unable to catch him he returned to the defendant demanding to know where his friend was. The defendant felt threatened and knocked the complainant to the floor. He was found sitting astride the complainant and punching him violently on the
An injury done to a person is justified if the victim had committed an injury of the same kind towards the person who inflicted it.
However, it does not fully disclose the conditions to satisfy this offence. In Wayne v R, the trial judge misled the jury by employing the word ‘might’ instead of ‘probably’, resulting in an appeal allowed22. The lack of a unified distinction between probability and possibility when defining recklessness allows errors like this to misguide the jury’s decision.
This is a completely separate and alternative aspect of mens rea, and it is assumed that the accused does not have an intention to kill. There is a clear difference between the mens rea of ‘recklessness’ for crimes other than murder, and ‘wicked recklessness’ for murder. This was determined in Cawthorne v HMA when the accused fired a high-velocity rifle through a wooden door into a room where four people were situated in an attempt to escape from him. He made no attempt to stop any danger from happening but fired five shots at a height where it may have been foreseeable that he could cause serious harm or injury. On the assumption that this intent was only to frighten these people and not to kill them, the appeal court still determined that the accused had shown the wicked recklessness necessary for murder. In this case it was held that the mens rea of murder, or attempted murder, could be proved by such recklessness that to show that the accused was regardless of the consequences of his actions, that he was completely indifferent to whether anyone died as a result of his actions. Cawthorne is now a clear precedent both that the mens rea of criminal attempt Is exactly the same as that for the completed crime and that wicked recklessness is a separate form of the mens rea of murder. Wicked recklessness is described by Gordon as recklessness which is “so gross that it indicates a state of mind of a deliberate
Criminal Code s.230(a) “one who intends on causing bodily harm for the purpose of (i) actually committing the offence, or (ii) planning his escape after committing or attempting to commit the offence, and the death derives from the bodily harm;” (Criminal Code of Canada)
In both Tsaccounis v R [2016] NSWCCA 163, and R v Peifeng Yu [2016] NSWDC 257, pursuant with section 37 of the Crimes Act 1900, the offender is found guilty of non-fatally attempting to choke the complainant, with further intention to commit an indictable offence and intimidate, whilst the two were in a domestic relationship, as defined by section 5 (c), (d), and (e) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
When describing a physical altercation between two adults, the term is assault and battery. Assault on an individual has more than immediate effects; the effects can last a lifetime in severe cases. In all fifty states, it is a crime to hit, strike or use corporal punishment in any deliberate manner towards any person over the age of eighteen. However, this law does not apply to physical force being used on minors. Spanking, whipping, and paddling are among a few common references to this form of punishment. Physically disciplining children has had many names over the years. No matter which term is used, corporal punishment has a negative impact on every party involved. It is a widely used, socially accepted method of discipline. “Approximately 94% of three and four-year old children have been spanked in the past year (Slade & Winssow 1321). Although spanking is a widespread practice, it is becoming more controversial. The negative effects of spanking greatly outweigh the benefits. Spanking is a socially tolerated view promoting abusive patterns, and has a negative psychological impact in teaching children that pain, fear, and confusion promote conformability.
Khan and his counsel, the ethics remain the same. This theory has the potential of putting the victim at harm if the complainant had been permitted to testify and the accidental contact theory was put to her in cross-examination. This theory can be detrimental to the complainant because a cross-examination can go for days, forcing the victim to relive the assault that occurred in minutes, and potentially experience re-victimization in that respect. By putting such implausible theories into the court goes against the lawyer’s obligation to advocate in good faith and not mislead the
This case is relevant because it is the first case applying the new "one punch legislation", after NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith decided to change the law an ensure that offence and charge will be considerable higher if the assault, causes death. The revised law has included as well
Consequently, in the eyes of the law, Harland was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of his offence amounting to recklessness and constituting the necessary mens rea. It is arguable however that the totality of the injuries suffered by Mr. Gallagher exceed ABH, amounting to very serious harm, and consequently, grievous bodily harm (GBH), qualifying a section 20 offense, whereby the defendant
... middle of paper ... ... A less intense example that fits into the discussion is the law of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt while in a car is a good way of possibly causing harm to yourself.
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
Baig v Harvie relates to the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour found in section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. This case comment will explain the relevant terms of section 38(1), and show the way in which the facts of the case constitute the offence. It will also discuss the defence created by section 38(2) and its application. Finally, it will highlight the key issue in relation to the offence; whether it was necessary to create the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour; and how the crime operates in relation to the common law crime of breach of the peace.
However, she would have been aware of a high probability of serious injury or death and therefore was found guilty of oblique intention. In this case causing harm was not intended but resulted.
20 constitutes the lesser offence with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, however there is the possibility of a conviction under section 18. The mens rea is the deciding factor when determining which section the defendant is to be charged under. The mens rea of section 20 is that the defendant had the intent to cause harm which could reasonably be foreseen that the actions would bring forwards these results of reckless, intentional harm. The Actus Rea for the act is similar under both sections though one key difference is that the offence under section 20 must be committed against another person (Find Laws, Legal Information, News & Solicitors - Findlaw UK, 2015). In the case of R v Lloyd (1989) the defendant kicked another rugby player whilst he was lying defenceless on the ground, resulting in the victims cheekbone breaking.
The Defendant inflicted a serious leg injury upon the victim whilst attempting to make a sliding tackle during an amateur football match. The tackle which caused the injury was crushing, late, unnecessary, reckless and high. The referee sent off Barnes and also gave evidence saying that it was not a sliding tackle and that it was two footed. He was convicted on one count of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He appealed against the conviction.