S.20 OAPA
S.20 OAPA
‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any
other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence and shall
be liable… to imprisonment for no more than 5 years.’
Commonly known as malicious wounding. Triable either way with a maximum sentence of 5 years
which is the same maximum imprisonment as S.47 despite being considered a more serious offence.
Actus reus:
- Wounding
- Inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Wound:
- Means a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin.
- A cut in the internal skin, such as in the cheek is sufficient.
- Internal bleeding where there is no cut of the skin is not sufficient.
- The cut must be of the whole skin, so that a scratch is not considered a wound.
JCC v Eisenhower (1983) – Victim was shot in the eye by a shotgun pellet. This did not penetrate the
eye but did cause severe bleeding under the surface. As there was no cut, it was held that this was
not a wound.
A broken bone is not considered a wound unless the skin is broken as well.
R v Wood – Victim’s collar bone was broken but, as the skin was intact, it was held there was no
wound.
Grievous Bodily Harm
DPP v Smith – Grievous Bodily Harm = really serious harm. The harm does not have to be life
threatening.
Saunders (1985) – held it was permissible to direct a jury that there needs to be serious harm not
including the word really.
R v Bollom (2004) – severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victim’s age and
health. The 17 month old child had bruises to her abdomen, both arms and left leg. Defendant was
convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and
substituted a conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, the Court of Appeal
stated that bruising could amount to grievous bodily harm. In his case, bruising of this type would be
worse on a young child than an adult in full health.
R v Burstow (1997) – victim of a stalker suffered a severe depressive illness as a result of his
conduct. Decided that serious psychiatric injury can be grievous bodily harm.
R v Dica (2004) – defendant had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV
positive. Both women became infected as a result. Although on appeal the defendant’s conviction
was quashed on the question of consent. The case was sent for re-trial, and it was decided that
infecting someone with HIV inflicting someone with grievous bodily harm. At his retrial he was
convicted.
S.20 OAPA
‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any
other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence and shall
be liable… to imprisonment for no more than 5 years.’
Commonly known as malicious wounding. Triable either way with a maximum sentence of 5 years
which is the same maximum imprisonment as S.47 despite being considered a more serious offence.
Actus reus:
- Wounding
- Inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Wound:
- Means a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin.
- A cut in the internal skin, such as in the cheek is sufficient.
- Internal bleeding where there is no cut of the skin is not sufficient.
- The cut must be of the whole skin, so that a scratch is not considered a wound.
JCC v Eisenhower (1983) – Victim was shot in the eye by a shotgun pellet. This did not penetrate the
eye but did cause severe bleeding under the surface. As there was no cut, it was held that this was
not a wound.
A broken bone is not considered a wound unless the skin is broken as well.
R v Wood – Victim’s collar bone was broken but, as the skin was intact, it was held there was no
wound.
Grievous Bodily Harm
DPP v Smith – Grievous Bodily Harm = really serious harm. The harm does not have to be life
threatening.
Saunders (1985) – held it was permissible to direct a jury that there needs to be serious harm not
including the word really.
R v Bollom (2004) – severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victim’s age and
health. The 17 month old child had bruises to her abdomen, both arms and left leg. Defendant was
convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and
substituted a conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, the Court of Appeal
stated that bruising could amount to grievous bodily harm. In his case, bruising of this type would be
worse on a young child than an adult in full health.
R v Burstow (1997) – victim of a stalker suffered a severe depressive illness as a result of his
conduct. Decided that serious psychiatric injury can be grievous bodily harm.
R v Dica (2004) – defendant had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV
positive. Both women became infected as a result. Although on appeal the defendant’s conviction
was quashed on the question of consent. The case was sent for re-trial, and it was decided that
infecting someone with HIV inflicting someone with grievous bodily harm. At his retrial he was
convicted.
