r v bollom

An intent to wound is insufficient. R v Mandair (1994): on a s charge, a conviction under s is available as an alternative There was a lot of bad feeling the two women and the defendant was unhappy to see the her. The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. In R v Johnson (Beverley) [2016] EWCA Crim 10; [2016] 4 WLR 57, at para. R v Bollom (2014) 'In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on the individual. The offences against the person act 1861 is clearly outdated and is interpreted in many He would be charged with battery and GBH s18 because the PC was Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. At trial the judge directed the jury that must convict if the defendant should have foreseen that the handling of his infant son would result in some harm occurring to the child. It was held on appeal that in the circumstances it was unnecessary to define malicious as harm was clearly intended, however Diplock LJ in obiter offered guidance in relation to the meaning of malicious under s.20 stating at paragraph 426. DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 explained that GBH should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, that is really serious harm. Case in Focus: R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, The defendant inflicted bruising on a 17-month-old child and was convicted of GBH. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. usually given for minor offences. The Court of Appeal referred the question to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. something back, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. A two-inch bruise for example on said 20-year-old might be painful but not really serious, whereas on a new born baby this would likely be indicative of a very severe risk to the health of the child. 44 Q The defendants, Luff Development Ltd, acquired a site that would be suitable for developing property on. The defendant was charged with the s.20 offence but argued that he had not inflicted the GBH suffered by his victim on her in accordance with the Wilson understanding of the term as he had at no point applied any force to her, either directly or indirectly. The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. There are serious issues with the description of the harm the provisions encompass: -. The defendant tried to appeal the charge on the basis that he believed inflict to require the direct application of force but the Court held that this was not the case as direct force was sufficient for the purposes of inflicting harm. This may be because it is impossible for the threat to be carried out. Accordingly, inflict can be taken to mean the direct or indirect application of force, or the causing of psychiatric harm. GBH = serious psychiatric injury. Entertainment the Painful Process of Rethinking Consent, https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/the-role-and-extent-of-criminal-sanctions-in-sport#references, The Regulation of on-the-ball Offences: Challenges in Court, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments. Reference this He suffered genital herpes, but had unprotected sex and acknowledged acting recklessly. Theyre usually given for less serious crimes. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. This simply sets out that you cannot be guilty of wounding or inflicting GBH on yourself. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 . The mens rea of GBH __can be recklessness or intention. is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant), R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of, however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was, foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. The Commons, PART 1 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. Key point. It should be noted that the if the defendant intended injury, they do not have to have intended serious injury. In the Ireland case, the appellant was convicted of three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for harassing three women by making repeated silent telephone calls to them. The House held that It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. The officer cut her finger on the needle and the defendant was found by the court to be liable for battery, due to the omission. Sometimes it is possible that an assault can be negated. unless done with a guilty mind. 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. However, following R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 the jury can find intention where although the result was not the exact desired consequence held by a defendant, it could be appreciated by the defendant himself that it was a virtually certain consequence of his act. Although his intentions were not R v Burstow. The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. It wasnt until the defendant decided to leave the car there that the battery occurred. Note that the issues set out above are just the issues taken from our discussion and are not a definitive list. The defendant made it clear that it was never her intention to actually throw the glass or harm the victim in anyway. One can go even further in the definition of the battery and argue that the touching of the hem of a skirt constitues a battery. turn Oliver as directed. Facts. He had touched himself and then failing to wash his hands had cared for the children in assisting with washing and dressing them, causing them to contract the disease. 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? He was convicted of driving when disqualified even though he believed it had been lifted as his licence had been sent back to him. v Pittwood (1902) would back this up as the defendant did not adequately fulfill their duty. He does not inform Tom that he is being arrested and when later questioned by his colleague he fails to give a reason for making the arrest. shows he did not mean to cause GBH s20 therefore he may receive a few years of [3] [25-28]. In rejecting his appeal, the House of Lords extended the definition of inflict to situations where no physical force had been applied to the victim. In light of these considerations, the correct approach is therefore to conduct an independent assessment of all the facts on a case by case basis. In this casethe defendant put a metal bar across the exit of a theatre, turned off the lights and then shouted fire, fire! which provoked people to run towards the exit where the bar was. Held: The judge had been correct to say that what constituted grievous bodily harm had to be looked at in the context of the . The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where his future mother-in-law was sleeping and was poisoned by the gas. Obiter in R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 extended this further to suggest that there is no need for intention or recklessness as to causing GBH or wounding; mere intention or recklessness as to the causing of some physical harm, albeit it very minor harm, will suffice. something like this would happen but yet she still carried on by taking that risk and is a ABH The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. Bravery on the part of the victim doesnt negate the offence. Accordingly, the defendant appealed. something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of R v Mohan (1976) Wounds are a separate concept to GBH and do not need to be really serious so dont confuse the two. Notably however, in the instance case, the defendants conviction for GBH under s. 18 was lessened to a charge of ABH under s. 47 as expert medical testimony suggested that the injuries sustained by the victim likely occurred over a prolonged period of time, rather than in the course of a single event, as would be necessary for a finding of GBH. The facts of the cases of both men were similar. . Case in Focus: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. Zeika was so terrified, she turned to run and fell down the stairs, breaking her culpability it is more likely a 5 years imprisonment with a fine due to the fact the police officer Are there any more concerns with these that you can identify yourself? Actus reus is the conduct of the accused. Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. It can be seen from this that a general knowledge of PACE or indeed law in general is sufficient to identify that this is not a lawful detainment and therefore any reckless GBH or wounding caused by Tom in intending to resist the detainment by the police officer will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of s.18. 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. For the purposes of this element of the actus reus it must first be shown that the harm was grievous. However, a cut could theoretically suffice where the greater level of harm was the intention. R v Wilson [1984] AC 242 overruled Clarence in this regard and held this was not the case. R v Ratnasabapathy (2009)- brain damage V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how. Whilst a s.20 offence may be committed recklessly, the s.18 offence specifically requires intention. another must be destroyed or damaged. act remains to be disorganized due to its unclear structure. It proposes to deal with them as follows: Despite this Bill being proposed back in 1998 there remains no change and the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 remains good law in this area. This would be a subjective recklessness as being a nurse she knew 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! R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose The victim turned to the defendant and demanded to know where his friend had gone. defendant's actions. In this case a gunshot wound that caused internal bleeding in the form of a ruptured blood vessel did not constitute a wound as the external skin was still intact. This is because, as confirmed in R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 an important consideration as to whether harm can be classed as grievous is dependent on the characteristics of the victim and therefore the law cannot reasonably provide a one size fits all list of injuries that this will encompass. R v Brady (2006)- broken neck patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessness she inflict may be taken to be interchangeable, I can find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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 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. The Court of Appeal held these injuries were justly described as GBH. Test. Bodily harm needs no explanation, and grievous means no R v Chan fook - Harm can not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. Actual bodily harm. Focusing on the facts of Mr Burstows case, the defendant had become obsessed with a woman and began stalking her, carrying out random acts such as damaging her car and breaking into her home, stealing her clothes, throwing condoms all over her garden, subjecting her to silent phone calls and sending hate mail. 2. not getting arrested and therefore pushed the PC over. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. Also the sentencing In the Burstow case, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm for harassing a women . It should be noted that intention is a subjective concept and the court is concerned entirely with what the defendant was intending when he committed the offence and not what a reasonable person may have perceived him to be intending. Therefore, through relevant sporting caselaw, it will be critically examined whether a participant's injury-causing act is an . Case in Focus: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her. top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily. - infliction of physical force is not required R v Burstow 1998 - age and health of the victim, their 'real context' matters R v Bollom - includes biological harm R v Rowe 2017, intentional HIV infections. Pendlebury, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes (2006) 4(2) Entertainment & Sports Law Journal onlinepara. R v Barnes (2005)- broken nose The maximum sentence was extended to reflect that it is more serious than a s.47 offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm which at present carries an identical sentence to the s.20 offence, despite the difference in severity of harm caused. For example, hitting them or pushing them would suffice but chasing them and causing them to run into a wall or fall into a pit would not. drug addiction or alcohol abuse. His friend stole some money from the victim and ran off. and hid at the top of the stairs. 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? prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine. Section 20 of the Offence Against the Persons Act provides: 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 a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof. In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. arm.-- In Jons case, he was irresponsible and it was foreseeable that scaring someone on 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. which will affect him mentally. JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 defines wounding as the breaking of both layers of the external skin: the dermis and the epidermis. For example, in relation to surgery, which in the absence of consent that would otherwise qualify as such unlawful harm. The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. Beths statement indicates that she couldnt be bothered to turn Oliver Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose punishment. A R v Martin. However, today this is not the case and it is unusual for such wounds to escalate to that scale. Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was This is known as indirect or oblique intention. times. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! If the GBH or wound is caused when the defendant is intending to resist an unlawful arrest, then this will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of the offence. This happened in R v Thomas, where the judge decided that the touching of a persons clothing amounted to the touching of the person themselves. assessment of harm done in an individual case in a contested trial will be a matter for the jury, This was affirmed in the case of R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 which considered the meaning of maliciously specifically in relation to the s.20 offence. Summary Week 1 Summary of the article "The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations" by Stephen Walt, Critically analyse and compare Plato and Aristotles concept of the body and soul, 3 Phase Systems Tutorial No 1 Solutions v1 PDF, Pdf-order-block-smart-money-concepts compress, 04a Practice papers set 2 - Paper 1H - Solutions, Faktor-faktor yang mengakibatkan peristiwa 13 Mei 1969. 42 Q What else must be proved in GBH? There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. There are also The act i, unless done with a guilty mind. It is this element of the offence that provides the crucial distinction between the s.18 charge and the s.20 charge. 25% off till end of Feb! As with any problem question on non-fatal offences against the person, make sure that you read the question in full first and check that the victim does not die as a result of the harm. In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. In-house law team. It should be noted that the ruling in Ireland and Burstow was keen to clarify that cause and inflict are not one and the same, however there is no case law at present that points to a distinguishable difference. R v Burgess [1991] 2 WLR 1206. Reduce To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. R v BM [2018] EWCA 560 Crim 63 R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 70 R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 72, 79-80. Following the case law, it can be properly stated that the mens rea of maliciously is in other words, a foresight by the defendant of a risk of some harm occurring. however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was s47 because its harm to the body but not significant damage and shes broken a duty of georgia_pearce51. 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. She succeeded in her case that the officer had committed battery, as he had gone beyond mere touching and had tried to restrain her, even though she was not being arrested. convicted of gbh s.18 oapa. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01. 2003-2023 Chegg Inc. All rights reserved. the two is the mens rea required. This obiter was confirmed in R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. The actus reus for the offence can be broken down as follows: These criteria are satisfied in the same way as for the s.18 offence, with the only difference being in relation to the GBH which can be caused rather than inflicted. In DPP v K, a schoolboy hid acid in a hand-drier, intending to remove it later. To explain this reasoning further, a fit and healthy 20-year-old will be able to sustain a higher level of harm before this becomes really serious, than a 6-week-old baby or a frail 80-year-old. R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34 clarified that the harm does not have to be physical and that a serious psychiatric injury could amount to GBH. Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. The mere fact that the same injuries on a healthy adult would be less serious does not alter the fact that in determining the appropriate charge, due regard must be had for the actual harm suffered by the victim. Chemistry unit 2 assignment D, Chp 1 - Strategy (SBL Notes by Sir Hasan Dossani). It was a decision for the jury. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. The first indicator of lawfulness is that the detainment takes the form of an arrest. voluntary act and omission is that it does not make an individual liable for a criminal act, unless it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to care whereas a. voluntary act is a willing movement to harm someone. decides not to give a criminal conviction, they will be given a discharge. When expanded it provides a list of search options that will switch the search inputs to match the current selection. foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. A criminal sentence. Actus reus is the conduct of the accused. If you are considering attempting this topic in an exam, then it will pay to do some further reading and also to conduct your own critical analysis of the two provisions. person shall be liable, For all practical purposes there is no difference between these two words the words cause and To understand the charges under each section first the type of harm encompassed by these charges must be established. The first point is that the apprehension being prevented must be lawful. R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen Direct intention is easy to comprehend; it is the very thing the defendant was actually intending to achieve when he did an act. The positi, defendant's actions. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was . "these injuries on a 6ft adult would be less serious than on the elderly or someone who is physically or psychiatrically vulnerable. Such injuries would have been less serious on a grown adult, and the jury could properly allow for that. and get an apology. The offence of assault is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. R v Tierney (2009): on a s charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative but because she didn't do this it comes under negligence and a breach of duty. 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. R v Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60 extended this further holding that the transmission does not have to occur through sexual intercourse. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. AR - R v Bollom. 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. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. 41 Q Which case said that GBH can be committed indirectly? The position is therefore In upholding his conviction Fulford J stated at paragraph 52 To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. Due to the requirement for the arrest to be lawful it is necessary to have some knowledge of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 as to when an arrest will be lawful, however for examination purposes the examiner is not testing your knowledge of the Act and will make it easy for you. LIST OF CASES, STATUTES AND STATUTORy INSTRUMENTS VII R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 72, 74 R v Catt [2013] EWCA Crim 1187 6 R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 74 Despite being originally held not to be so in the case of R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, following R v Dica [2004] 3 ALL ER 593 Inflict now also encompasses the transmission of sexual diseases, such as HIV, where these are serious enough to be constituted as GBH, and the defendant is aware that there is a risk that they are suffering from the disease (R v Adaye (2004) unreported). In other words, it must be more than minor and short term. 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. 0.0 / 5. R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484 stated that judges should not attempt to define this any further to a jury and that this is a wholly objective assessment. R. v. Ireland; R. v. Burstow. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. 6 of 1980 have established that a person may give valid consent to GBH, but only where it is in the public interest for them to do so (see Chapter 4.1 for a more in-depth discussion as to this). Per Fulford J: We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context. ([]). PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb 27th Jun 2019 This caused gas to escape. It uses outdated language that is now misinterpreted in modern Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. Discharges are This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. AR - R v Burstow. R v Bollom. Examples where lawful force could be used might include force used in self-defence or defence of another, or where the force is threatened or used by a police officer in the execution of their duties. A shop keeper was held liable even though it was his employee who had sold the lottery ticket to the child. verdict There is confusing terminology, especially with regards to maliciously and inflict. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of He appealed on the basis of a misdirection and it was held that malicious is properly defined as possessing an actual intention to cause the harm or subjective recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not. Intention to do some grievous bodily harm. Finally, the force which is threatened must be unlawful. The CPS Charging Standards seek to address this by stating that a minor injury as such should be bought under s.47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm, however these are just guidelines and are not legally binding. This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the mens rea which is the intention Reform and rehabilitate offenders by changing an offenders