Criminal Law - Wounding or Inflicting GBH (s 20)

?
  • Created by: Alasdair
  • Created on: 05-11-20 13:25
Legislation for Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm
Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 20)
1 of 13
Penalty for Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (s 20)
Upto five years prison sentence. Note that although same sentence as s 47, s 20 in practice generally carries heavier sentences.
2 of 13
Actus reus of s 20 of OAPA 1861
To unlawfully wound or inflict grievous bodily harm.
3 of 13
Significance of R v Horwood [2012] EWCA Crim 253 regarding lawful/unlawful?
Wounding or grievous bodily harm inflicted in self-defence or in defence is lawful and doesn't count as s 20.
4 of 13
What does Moriarty v Brookes [1834] 6 C & P 684 tell us about nature of wound?
Requires both layers of skin to be broken. Looking for blood. Wounds can include cuts of any size or severity or lacerations. In theory, a scratch that draws blood will suffice.
5 of 13
What kind of wound is required for someone to be charge with s 20 in practice under CPS's Charging Standard Code?
A more serious cut than a simple scratch that draws blood.
6 of 13
What JJC (a Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 tell us about nature of wounds in s 20?
Bruising or internal bleeding are not wounds no matter how serious the bleeding as the skin has not been broken. Severe internal bleeding could amount to GBH if severe enough.
7 of 13
Meaning of DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
GBH means 'really serious harm' but case law provides no further guidance.
8 of 13
Juries decide whether victim' injuries amount to serious harm. What could examples of this be?
Fractured skull, severe internal injuries and broken limbs.
9 of 13
House of Lords decision in R v Burstow [1997] 4 AII ER 225 concerning psychiatric problems. (1 of 2)
Psychiatric problems could amount to GBH if severe enough. Appeal involved stalker hounding victim and making silent phone calls resulting in severe psychiatric illness - deemed Burstow had inflicted GBH this way.
10 of 13
House of Lords decision in R v Burstow [1997] 4 AII ER 225 concerning psychiatric problems. (2 of 2)
Lords held no need for direct or indirect application of force to body and there could be infliction of GBH without legal equivalent of physical or simple assault being committed.
11 of 13
Mens rea of s 20 of OAPA 1861?
'Maliciously' - intention or recklessly (R v Cunningham [1957] 3 WLR 76)
12 of 13
According to R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991] 4 AII ER 698, what degree did the defendant have to intend or foresee? (MR and recklessness)
Defendant need only intend or be reckless as to some bodily harm (ie. ABH). Not necessary to prove defendant foresaw really serious harm (ie. GBH) or exact nature of harm that occurred.
13 of 13

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Penalty for Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (s 20)

Back

Upto five years prison sentence. Note that although same sentence as s 47, s 20 in practice generally carries heavier sentences.

Card 3

Front

Actus reus of s 20 of OAPA 1861

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Significance of R v Horwood [2012] EWCA Crim 253 regarding lawful/unlawful?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What does Moriarty v Brookes [1834] 6 C & P 684 tell us about nature of wound?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal Law resources »