s.20 OAPA

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Zoe
  • Created on: 13-04-13 09:00
View mindmap
  • s.20 OAPA
    • Recklessly inflicting a wound or GBH
    • ACTUS REUS - 'wound' and 'GBH'
      • The terms have the same meaning as in s.18
        • But in addition GBH includes psychiatric injury. - R v IRELAND, R v  BURSTOW [1998]
          • The words 'bodily harm' in s.20 must include recognisable psychiatric illness (affirming R v CHAN - FOOK
          • Here, psychiatric illness is defined as those psychological conditions which expert psychiatric evidence recognises as a psychiatric illness
            • Hence, GBH could be 'inflicted' without physical violence - The term 'conflict is not confined to direct/ indirect application of force to the body ( Burstow)
    • MENS REA - 'maliciously'
      • D must be proved to have wounded/ inflicted GBH 'intentionally' or 'recklessly' ( It is the presence of recklessness which differentiates s.20 and s.18
      • Crime of basic intent- minimal condition that must be proved is recklessness
        • TEST FOR RECKLESSNESS UNDER S.20 - R v Savage, DPP v  Parmenter [1992]
          • 1) Recklessness under s.20 is a subjective/ advertent recklessness which can only be established by proof of actual foresight on the part of D. 2) R v Mowatt [1968] still guiding authority - affirmed and cited
            • 'It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
              • Principle of correspondence replaced with a notion of constructive liability in which the mens rea for the offence is established if the D foresaw some harm
                • Renders the distinction between s.20 and s.47 unclear as the degree of foresight is thereby defined in the same way


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »