S20 GBH & WOUNDING
D may be liable for unlawfully and maliciously [CHOOSE: INFLICTING grievous bodily harm
(GBH) or WOUNDING] under S20 of The Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The Actus Reus is an act or omission causing GBH / Wound. [if it’s an omission say an omission
is a failure to act where there is a duty to do so + refer to one: Contractual duty – Pittwood,
Voluntary DOC – Stone and Dobinson, Failed to minimise own act – Miller, Public position,
Dytham].
[CHOOSE RELVEANT ONE]:
GBH was defined in DPP V SMITH as “really serious harm”. This is judged objectively according to
the standard of the reasonable person. A reasonable person would/would not regard V’s injuries
of [e.g. broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability, loss of sense, serious
infection – DICA, serious psychosocial harm – IRELAND, MILLER] as serious harm.
[APPLY IF RELEVANT: a combination of injuries can constitute GBH as in BROWN and
STRATTON]
As a result, V’s injuries may/may not constitute GBH.
o The case of EISENHOWER defined a WOUND as breaking both outer and inner layers of the
skin. A scratch or break to the outer skin is not sufficient if the inner skin remains intact
(M’LOUGHLIN). Here V’s injuries constitute a wound, as he suffered a [e.g. deep cuts, stab
wounds, bleeding]
o As a result, V’s injuries may/may not constitute a wound
Factual Causation is satisfied, as ‘but for’ D [say what D did], the GBH would not have occurred
(WHITE or PAGETT) and Legal Causation is satisfied, as D was the operating and substantial
cause of the GBH, as it was significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH).
The Men’s Rea is intention or subjective recklessness AS TO SOME PHYSICAL HARM, NOT AS
TO THE GBH ITSELF, set out in SAVAGE, MOWATT, PARMENTER.
CHOOSE ONE:
Has specific/direct intention to cause some physical harm, as she desired the outcome
(MOHAN) when [e.g. punched V causing her to fall and suffer a fractured skull in an
argument]
D was subjectively reckless as in GRIMSHAW as she foresaw a risk in causing some
physical harm carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when [e.g. she pushed V near to
some stairs causing her to suffer a fractured skull]
IF RELEVANT: ‘The Transferred Malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person
falls on another by accident. Here as in [choose LATIMER or MITCHELL, D will still be liable as the
MR is transferred from Y to Z.
To conclude, D is likely to be liable.
D may be liable for unlawfully and maliciously [CHOOSE: INFLICTING grievous bodily harm
(GBH) or WOUNDING] under S20 of The Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The Actus Reus is an act or omission causing GBH / Wound. [if it’s an omission say an omission
is a failure to act where there is a duty to do so + refer to one: Contractual duty – Pittwood,
Voluntary DOC – Stone and Dobinson, Failed to minimise own act – Miller, Public position,
Dytham].
[CHOOSE RELVEANT ONE]:
GBH was defined in DPP V SMITH as “really serious harm”. This is judged objectively according to
the standard of the reasonable person. A reasonable person would/would not regard V’s injuries
of [e.g. broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability, loss of sense, serious
infection – DICA, serious psychosocial harm – IRELAND, MILLER] as serious harm.
[APPLY IF RELEVANT: a combination of injuries can constitute GBH as in BROWN and
STRATTON]
As a result, V’s injuries may/may not constitute GBH.
o The case of EISENHOWER defined a WOUND as breaking both outer and inner layers of the
skin. A scratch or break to the outer skin is not sufficient if the inner skin remains intact
(M’LOUGHLIN). Here V’s injuries constitute a wound, as he suffered a [e.g. deep cuts, stab
wounds, bleeding]
o As a result, V’s injuries may/may not constitute a wound
Factual Causation is satisfied, as ‘but for’ D [say what D did], the GBH would not have occurred
(WHITE or PAGETT) and Legal Causation is satisfied, as D was the operating and substantial
cause of the GBH, as it was significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH).
The Men’s Rea is intention or subjective recklessness AS TO SOME PHYSICAL HARM, NOT AS
TO THE GBH ITSELF, set out in SAVAGE, MOWATT, PARMENTER.
CHOOSE ONE:
Has specific/direct intention to cause some physical harm, as she desired the outcome
(MOHAN) when [e.g. punched V causing her to fall and suffer a fractured skull in an
argument]
D was subjectively reckless as in GRIMSHAW as she foresaw a risk in causing some
physical harm carried on regardless (CUNNINGHAM) when [e.g. she pushed V near to
some stairs causing her to suffer a fractured skull]
IF RELEVANT: ‘The Transferred Malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person
falls on another by accident. Here as in [choose LATIMER or MITCHELL, D will still be liable as the
MR is transferred from Y to Z.
To conclude, D is likely to be liable.
