Law 03 NFO s20 GBH

Eisenhower - A wound must break the skin

Smith - Defined GBH as 'serious harm' 

Saunders - Demonstrated that serious harm is enogh for GBH 

Burstow - Psychiatric harm ie, harassment could be GBH as long as it 'serious' 

Bollom - The circumstances of the victim can affect the charge (ie, a baby) 

Burstow - Inflict does'nt mean contact directly between D and V 

Martin - Causing trampling of people in a cinema by yelling fire was 'inflicting' the consequence 

Pagett - Supports the 'but for' test and therefore is the factual cause

White - Against the 'but for' test and cannot be liable 

Smith - If the defendant is the overwhemling cause of the harm they ar ethe legal cause 

Cheshire - Poor medical treatment will not break causation if D significantly contributed to the death 

Malcherek - Turning off life support doesnt break causation 

Roberts - Forseeable intervening acts will not break the causation 

Williams - Unreasonable acts will break causation 

Cato - If D suplies/injects V with drugs there is no break in caustaion 

Kennedy - Self-injection of drugs does break causation 

Blaue - Particular weaknesses in the V will not break causation (Think Skull Rule) 

Intention or recklessness

Mowatt - Confrimed the risk of some harm is needed; not serious harm 

Cunningham - Subjective recklessness is when the defendant recognises the risk but goes ahead anyway

Latimer - No name to mens rea, D does'nt need to hit the V intending to 

Fagan - Continuing act AR before MR 

Thabo Meli - Series of events MR before AR