S18 OAPA 1861 - malicious wounding or causing GBH with intent to do some GBH

S18 OAPA 1861 - wounding or causing GBH with intent

• often referred to as wounding with intent

• ‘‘whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person’

basic info

• indictable offence

• Crown Court

• specific intent

actus reus of S18

unlawfully wounding or causing GBH on the victim

mens rea of S18

maliciously, meaning: intention to cause some GBH or the intention to resist arrest

Actus Reus - Element One:

Unlawful

some wounding + GBH may be deemed lawful

• self defence/prevention of crime

• consent = medical procedures and properly conducted sport

R v Melin (2019) - consent to Botox insufficient = on basis that the victim believed the defendant to be medically qualified

Actus Reus - Element Two:

Wounding

• wound - cut or break in the continuity of the skin causing external bleeding

• JJC v Eisenhower - no break in skin

• R v Wood - broken collarbone does not suffice

• Moriarty v Brookes - classed as wound

Wounding - JJC v Eisenhower

• shot airgun at group

• hit another minor

• blood vessel ruptured

• charged under S20 OAPA 1861

Wounding - Moriarty v Brookes

• argument in public house

• approached to attack

• victim beaten + face cut - was wounded!

Actus Reus - Element Three:

Causing

• wide definition - must be the substantial cause of the wound or GBH

• e.g. R v Smith & R v Cheshire

Causing - R v Smith

• stabbed comrade in army barracks

• dropped whilst being taken to help

• still substantial cause

Causing - R v Cheshire

• defendant shot victim

• breathing difficulties - tracheaotomy

• died of complications

• defendant still substantial cause

Actus Reus - Element Four:

Grievous Bodily Harm

• DPP v Smith - ‘really serious harm’

  inc. long term/permanent injury, or requiring extensive treatment

• does not have to be life threatening, jury can be directed to include ‘serious’ - R v Saunders

• recognisable psychiatric injury will be applicable - R v Chan Fook & R v Burstow

• less serious injury for vulnerable victim - R v Bollom

• loss of consciousness - R v Hicks & R v Foster

• in regards to STDs

  • R v Golding & R v Konzani & R v Dica

GBH - DPP v Smith

• police ordered defendant to stop car

• accelerated

• police jumped on - fell & died

• murder conviction to manslaughter

• Lords - guilty of murder, intent to cause GBH

GBH - R v Bollom

• injuries to child

• not GBH under S18 OAPA - age considered

• guilty under S20

GBH - R v Burstow

• brief relationship ended

• 8mo. harassment - phone calls, photos

• severe depressive illness

GBH - R v Chan Fook

• accused woman of stealing

• aggressive questioning

GBH - R v Foster

• defendant one of three people who attacked victim in queue

• lost consciousness

GBH - R v Golding

• didn’t disclose STD

• issue of S20 OAPA

• guilty of recklessly inflicting GBH under S20

GBH - R v Konzani

• defendant aware of HIV

• three sexual encounters not informed

• all contracted - held that they had no knowledge

GBH - R v Dica

• charged w/ two counts under S20

• aware of HIV

• victims unaware & infected

• no consent to undisclosed infection

S18 GBH - Mens Rea

• S18 OAPA 1861 - specific intent offence

• defendant must have intent & recklessness must suffice

• intention must be to - do some GBH, or resist/prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person

S18 GBH - Mens Rea

intention

• ‘maliciously’ appears in S18 - adds nothing to the mens rea

• direct intention has same meaning as in murder

direct intention - a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies in the defendants power to bring about the prohibited consequence (R v Mohan)

oblique intention - embarks on course of conduct to bring desired result, knowing consequence will bring another result = does not necessarily desire outcome, realises is almost inevitable (R v Woollin, confirmed R v Matthews and Alleyne)

mens rea - R v Taylor

• victim attacked - minor scratches and a stab wound

• no evidence of intent to cause GBH

• guilty under S20 OAPA 1861

intention to wound insufficient if it does not amount to GBH

mens rea - R v Belfon

• attacked man to help a girl

• slashed man with razor

• needed specific intent for S18

• guilty under S20 - recklessness

intention for GBH must be proven = recklessness will not suffice

Mens Rea - resisting arrest

• when defendant is attempting to resist/prevent arrest of detention - level of intention for injury is lower

• prosecution only needs to prove defendants recklessness as to whether actions would cause wound or injury

mens rea - R v Morrison

(resisting arrest)

• police entered to arrest

• defendant ran for the window

• police grabbed clothes - ended up dragged through window

• jury convicted defendant under S18 - can still be guilty with recklessness