s.20 OAPA
- 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)
- But in addition GBH includes psychiatric injury. - R v IRELAND, R v BURSTOW [1998]
- The terms have the same meaning as in s.18
- 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
- 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
- 'It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
- 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
- TEST FOR RECKLESSNESS UNDER S.20 - R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter [1992]
Comments
No comments have yet been made