Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. The actus reus of this offence can be broken down as follows: Inflicting harm is prima facie unlawful, therefore this requirement is satisfied simply in absence of an available defence such as self-defence or valid consent. 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. To conclude, the OAPA clearly remains to be R v Bollom. v Pittwood (1902) would back this up as the defendant did not adequately fulfill their duty. They can include words, actions, or even silence! Applying the Eisenhower definition this element is satisfied if a break in the external skin arises from the defendants conduct. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. The offences against the person act 1861 is clearly outdated and is interpreted in many Match. The answer heavily relies on the implied sporting consent principle. act remains to be disorganized due to its unclear structure. Regina v Bollom: CACD 8 Dec 2003. In-house law team. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd: 1978, Lamb v Camden London Borough Council: 1981, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. 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. The case R crimes where the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the conduct caused a crime. D was convicted under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) D appealed on the basis that V's injuries did not . The victims characteristics, including his age, must be considered in deciding whether the harm caused constitutes actual bodily harm, D dropped his partners baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on Vs leg, V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how, D was convicted under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH), D appealed on the basis that Vs injuries did not amount to GBH as they had to be assessed without reference to Vs age and health, Appeal allowed the conviction was substituted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s47, Assessment of the harm had to be made on the basis of effect on the particular individual, The injuries need not be life-threatening, dangerous or permanent to constitute GBH, Injuries had to be viewed collectively to assess whether they were serious, Injuries had to be caused by one continuous course of conduct constituting a continuous assault, Although Vs age had to be taken into account when assessing his injuries, the judge failed to direct the jury to determine Ds responsibility in inflicting the injuries was uncertain, as such the conviction was unsafe. . It Is The defendant appealed contending that it was necessary to establish a subjective appreciation of the risk and not an objective ruling that he should have foreseen the risk of injury. This was the case in R v Lamb, where the victim believed that a revolver being pointed at him would not fire a bullet (as he believed that the firing chamber was unloaded). decides not to give a criminal conviction, they will be given a discharge. The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. The mens rea for the s.20 offence is maliciously. R v Savage (1991): The prosecution is not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to protected from the offender. This was changed in R v Saunders, where the word really was removed from the definition so as to clarify the nature of the offence. This obiter was confirmed in R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. directed by the doctor. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. usually given for minor offences. R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212. turn Oliver as directed. verdict - no expectation of BODILY HARM -no need to look for good reason of activity, if did not foresee/intend ABH, for agreement to risk, must have actual knowledge of HIV and understand the implication - reckless transmission = GBH, Like Brown, activities unpredictably dangerous (criminal under article 8), must be a good reason for causing harm - sexual gratification is not a good reason, must be good reason - tattoo was done for end product and not sexual gratification, consent to rough and undisciplined horseplay is a defence (s.20) - had genuine belief (was reasonable) that he had consented to the throwing, if consent or belief in consent = no offence? jail. The main issues with the current law can be identified as follows: This is another hot topic for an essay question on these offences. the lawful apprehension of any person, shall be guilty. DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting Vs hair. *You can also browse our support articles here >, Attorney Generals Reference no. - playing with fire proof suits, if self-administered, this breaks the chain of causation, substance noxious so long as it irritates another - can be so small a dose that add up, did not foresee actions causing harm =NO MR, unlawful act of administering noxious substance caused death -, best interests defence, unable to make decision themselves - woman mentally handicapped, sexual urges but did not understand pregnancy, would be traumatic - didn't want to separate from male (sterilised her in best interest), best interests - donate bone marrow to sister so she lives and can visit - cannot consent nor understand the circumstances, Caesarean in bet interest (was actually a battery), abolish defence of chastisement - charged with inflicting GBH, used defence - inhumane - may cases - should change legislation. Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. Accordingly, inflict can be taken to mean the direct or indirect application of force, or the causing of psychiatric harm. 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. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks). 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). 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. 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. Subjective recklessness is that a defendant must Another way in which battery can occur is indirectly. Due to the age of the Act and numerous issues identified with the offences set out there is lots of discussion surrounding reform of the law in relation to the s.18 and s.20 offences. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the another must be destroyed or damaged. R v Burgess [1991] 2 WLR 1206. subjective, not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the For example, dangerous driving. His friend stole some money from the victim and ran off. Woolf LCJ, Gibbs, Fulford JJ if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 15-Dec-2003, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Cited Golding, Regina v CACD 8-May-2014 The defendant appealed against his conviction on a guilty plea, of inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20.