GBH case law

Moriarty v Brookes 1834

The victim kept stealing drinks for the defendants pub. In retaliation D grabbed V and punched him in the face causing a cut under his eye that led to bleeding. This helped to clarify wounding as the continuity of the skin was broken.

JCC v Eisenhower (1984)

Two 15 year olds bought an air rifle that fired metal bullets and used it to fire at a crows of people. V was hit in the eye which caused a blood vessel to break and swelling in the eye but not break in the skin. The court ruled a break in both layers of the skin was required for wounding and this hadn’t been fulfilled.

DPP v Smith (1961)

D was escaping police custody in is car when an officer jumped on the bonnet of his car and held on as he drove. He began to zigzag to throw the officer off and succeeded in doing so throwing him into the oncoming traffic and killing him. This led to Grievous being defined as serious not really serious being intended.

R v Saunders (1985)

V was waiting to be picked up when D cam up to him and said I’ll give you a problem and punched him in the face. At trial grievous was once again defined as only serious allowing GBH to include punches in the face.

R v Bollom

D was the step father of a 17 month baby and he was particularly rough with her by shooting her with a toy gun and throwing pillows at her. One day the parents were drinking and the mum goes downstairs. While she’s gone she hears a loud thud upstairs. The next day bruising is discovered on the child. At trial D was charged with GBH because although the harm wouldn’t be serious to an adult in cases with a more fragile person that is considered to make minor injuries more serious as damage done to children or the elderly is worse.

R v Burstow (1997)

D went on four days with V when she said it wasn’t going to work. He then began a campaign of stalking and sending letters to her over a period of 8 months. As a result she was diagnosed with a severe psychological illness which was judged to be sufficient for GBH meaning Bodily includes physical and mental damage.

R v Dica (2004)

D had been diagnosed with AIDS. After this he slept with two women and intentionally made them not use contraception and never told them he had AIDS. At trial this was agreed to be GBH for intentionally spreading STI’s without consent from the victim.

R v Brown & Statton (1997)

The two defendants were cousin and the victim was Stratton’s father. The father had been undergoing gender reassignment surgery and embarrassed them when he came to their workplace wearing a dress. In retaliation Ds got drunk went to V’s house and beat her up. Although none of the injuries alone were Gbh there is a cumulative affect in GBH meaning they add up to GBH. This goes on the principle of would the victim call the injuries serious.

R v Parmenter

Clarified MR of GBH. D had little idea of what to do with his 3 month old baby. He was playing catch with the child as he had with others but the baby was too young and he was throwing it too high leading to damage to its bones. This clarified that the MR for section 20 GBH is that D needs to foresee some harm, not serious harm. D was found not guilty as he foresaw no harm. This is the difference between s20 and s18 GBH

R v Morrison

clarified s18 for intending to resist arrest. D was being arrested when he dove through a window bringing the victim with them which badly cut her face on the broken glass. This is one of the two mens reas of s18 GBH