Basic Things to remember for OAPA
Actual physical harm is not the essence of battery.
Inflicting GBH’ make up the vision of some form of application of force which delivers the
harm, just as a knife or gun delivers a wound or either with or without any weapon or
instrument which implies some form of harm-delivering blow or application of force.
Wounding without any GBH would fall in s.20.
For s.18, in case of D causing V GBH in other ways, prosecution must prove that this level of
injury was intended. A jury which is not convinced that D had necessary intention to cause
GBH, can bring s.20 as alternative charge.
CONSENT
Absence of V’s consent is one of the elements of common assault.
It is the duty of jury to see whether consent is present or not.
Consent may be ineffective who do not understand exactly what they are consenting to (the
young Burrell V Harmer, tattooing youths of 12 and 13 or those who lack mental capacity).
The deception was as to status rather than identity and to the quality of the contact rather
than its nature in Bolduc v Bird and Richardson respectively.
AG Reference No. 6 of 1980, Lord Lane said: It is not in public interest that people try to
cause, or should cause, each other ABH for no good reason.
Lord Templeman in Brown: In my view, consent of the V is no answer to anyone unless the
circumstances fall within one of the well-known exceptions such as organized sports
consents and games, parental chastisement (parent’s punishment) or reasonable surgery.
Other points to note
1.Use Woollin direction while proving intention of causing GBH of s.18
2.Always try to charge with bigger charge.
3. When it is clearly in proposition that V died due to D’s intention of causing GBH then discuss only
s.18, not s.20 and save your exam’s time.
Actual physical harm is not the essence of battery.
Inflicting GBH’ make up the vision of some form of application of force which delivers the
harm, just as a knife or gun delivers a wound or either with or without any weapon or
instrument which implies some form of harm-delivering blow or application of force.
Wounding without any GBH would fall in s.20.
For s.18, in case of D causing V GBH in other ways, prosecution must prove that this level of
injury was intended. A jury which is not convinced that D had necessary intention to cause
GBH, can bring s.20 as alternative charge.
CONSENT
Absence of V’s consent is one of the elements of common assault.
It is the duty of jury to see whether consent is present or not.
Consent may be ineffective who do not understand exactly what they are consenting to (the
young Burrell V Harmer, tattooing youths of 12 and 13 or those who lack mental capacity).
The deception was as to status rather than identity and to the quality of the contact rather
than its nature in Bolduc v Bird and Richardson respectively.
AG Reference No. 6 of 1980, Lord Lane said: It is not in public interest that people try to
cause, or should cause, each other ABH for no good reason.
Lord Templeman in Brown: In my view, consent of the V is no answer to anyone unless the
circumstances fall within one of the well-known exceptions such as organized sports
consents and games, parental chastisement (parent’s punishment) or reasonable surgery.
Other points to note
1.Use Woollin direction while proving intention of causing GBH of s.18
2.Always try to charge with bigger charge.
3. When it is clearly in proposition that V died due to D’s intention of causing GBH then discuss only
s.18, not s.20 and save your exam’s time.
