*OAPA/Defences [2018]
Ehsan and Farah are first year economics students at the prestigious Regal College of London. Ehsan
suffers from diabetes and has to take insulin after meals. Farah swaps Ehsan’s insulin for saline
solution, to make him do badly in their Macroeconomics final exam. During the exam, Ehsan goes
into diabetic shock and attacks Grace, breaking her cheekbone, before he loses consciousness and
collapses.
The invigilator Helen, who is diabetic herself, recognises the symptoms of diabetic shock, and
attempts to inject Ehsan with her own insulin. In her panic though, it takes her several attempts to
find a vein and she causes extensive bruising on Ehsan’s forearm. When Ehsan recovers from the
diabetic shock, he remembers only taking his seat in the examination hall, and then blacking out.
Advise Ehsan, Farah and Helen on their respective criminal liability for non-fatal non-sexual offences
against the person.
F is potentially liable to E for inflicting GBH with intent, contrary to s.18 OAPA
Actus Reus
DPP v Smith: GBH defined as really serious harm
o E suffered diabetic shock, which can potentially be life threatening
o GBH can be a serious illness (R v Dica)
Factual causation
o If F had not swapped out E’s insulin, E would not have suffered from diabetic shock
Legal causation
o F’s conduct is more than a minimal cause (required in R v Hughes) for E’s inability to
access his insulin
o F’s conduct constitutes a salient cause as well – is not too remote or intervened
No third party intervention
Hence, F satisfies the actus reus of the offence
Mens Rea
R v Bryson: F must have intent to do some grievous bodily harm to E
o While F’s aim was simply to make E do badly in their exam, F sees E suffering from a
diabetic shock as a necessary means to achieve his aim F has direct intention
o Affirmed in R v Mohan – does not matter if you desire the consequence of your act,
as long as it is your intention
o However, court may find that F did not necessarily see E’s diabetic shock as a
necessary means, but just E’s discomfort (as a result of not having insulin) during the
exam as a necessary means to make E do badly in the exam. If so, court will find that
F did not intent to do ‘grievous’ bodily harm but just ‘some harm’ and thus
convict F under s.20 OAPA instead (which requires that F is intentional or reckless to
cause some harm, R v Parmenter)
Ehsan and Farah are first year economics students at the prestigious Regal College of London. Ehsan
suffers from diabetes and has to take insulin after meals. Farah swaps Ehsan’s insulin for saline
solution, to make him do badly in their Macroeconomics final exam. During the exam, Ehsan goes
into diabetic shock and attacks Grace, breaking her cheekbone, before he loses consciousness and
collapses.
The invigilator Helen, who is diabetic herself, recognises the symptoms of diabetic shock, and
attempts to inject Ehsan with her own insulin. In her panic though, it takes her several attempts to
find a vein and she causes extensive bruising on Ehsan’s forearm. When Ehsan recovers from the
diabetic shock, he remembers only taking his seat in the examination hall, and then blacking out.
Advise Ehsan, Farah and Helen on their respective criminal liability for non-fatal non-sexual offences
against the person.
F is potentially liable to E for inflicting GBH with intent, contrary to s.18 OAPA
Actus Reus
DPP v Smith: GBH defined as really serious harm
o E suffered diabetic shock, which can potentially be life threatening
o GBH can be a serious illness (R v Dica)
Factual causation
o If F had not swapped out E’s insulin, E would not have suffered from diabetic shock
Legal causation
o F’s conduct is more than a minimal cause (required in R v Hughes) for E’s inability to
access his insulin
o F’s conduct constitutes a salient cause as well – is not too remote or intervened
No third party intervention
Hence, F satisfies the actus reus of the offence
Mens Rea
R v Bryson: F must have intent to do some grievous bodily harm to E
o While F’s aim was simply to make E do badly in their exam, F sees E suffering from a
diabetic shock as a necessary means to achieve his aim F has direct intention
o Affirmed in R v Mohan – does not matter if you desire the consequence of your act,
as long as it is your intention
o However, court may find that F did not necessarily see E’s diabetic shock as a
necessary means, but just E’s discomfort (as a result of not having insulin) during the
exam as a necessary means to make E do badly in the exam. If so, court will find that
F did not intent to do ‘grievous’ bodily harm but just ‘some harm’ and thus
convict F under s.20 OAPA instead (which requires that F is intentional or reckless to
cause some harm, R v Parmenter)
