Principles of criminal liability The three offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Lesson Objectives I will be able to describe, using authority, the actus reus and mens rea of s47, s20 and s18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 I will be able to apply these to a given situation

Nature of the offences These are the more serious personal injury offences, compared with assault and battery Section 47 is the least serious offence. It is also the offence that, of the three, gives rise to the most convictions.

Section 47 Whoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years Triable either way ABH (the offence requiring the consequence of more than minimal harm to the victim) The actus reus has 3 elements: Assault Occasioning Actual bodily harm

Assault includes both assault and battery Assault includes both assault and battery. The first essential part of the actus reus is to prove that there was an assault or battery as set out in the previous lesson The second element, occasioning, means bringing about the consequence – this is causation The third element is the key distinction. Chan-Fook (1994) – in this case it was decided that ‘harm’ in s47 of the OAPA includes physical or psychiatric harm ‘Harm’ means ‘injury’ and ‘actual’ indicates that the injury should not be so trivial as to be ‘wholly insignificant’. ‘Bodily harm’ is not limited to harm of the skin flesh and bones, but includes organs, nervous system and brain. It can include psychiatric injury, but does not include emotions or states of mind that are not in themselves evidence of an identifiable medical condition. Where there is expert evidence of psychiatric injury, the injury is capable of ABH (Chan-Fook)

Smith (2006) – in this case it was decided that ABH can include all parts of the body including the hair The mens rea of the offence is intention or recklessness as to assault or battery Roberts (1971) – this case is authority for the proposition that mens rea for s47 OAPA is intention or recklessness as to assault or battery Savage (1991) – this case confirmed the mens rea for s47 OAPA as set out in Roberts (1971), that is where a crime states the mens rea as ‘maliciously’, this requires either intention or recklessness

Section 20 Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence Triable either way Correct name can be either malicious wounding or inflicting GBH The actus reus has 3 elements: Unlawful Wound Grievous bodily harm

The first element is that the act must be unlawful The first element is that the act must be unlawful. In the context of s20, this usually means that there must have been no consent to the act The second element is the definition of a wound. Wounding requires there to have been a break in the surface of the skin; this is both layers of the skin and is therefore seen to be an open wound, usually with blood loss – JCC v Eisenhower (1984) – this case explained that a wound requires breaking of both layers of the skin The third, separate, element is that of GBH. This has been defined in various ways such as ‘really serious’ harm. This means that it is a phrase that should be given its ordinary and natural meaning in the circumstances of the case – Brown and Stratton (1998) – in this case a collection of relatively minor injuries amounted to GBH

The mens rea required is set out on the definition of the Act as ‘maliciously’. The court confirmed in Savage (1991) that ‘maliciously’ meant intentionally or recklessly Therefore, in order to prove that the defendant acted maliciously, it is sufficient to prove that he intended his act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to some other person, albeit of a minor nature, or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm. There is no requirement that the intent or recklessness must be as to anything more than that some harm might occur

Section 18 Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever 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 Triable only on indictment The actus reus is either wounding or GBH set out in s20

The mens rea is that the defendant must be ‘malicious’ but in addition he must be proved to have had further specific intent, in that it must have been the defendant’s intention either to do some GBH to the victim or to resist or prevent a lawful arrest or detention Belfon (1976) – it was decided in this case that for there to be a conviction under s18 of OAPA, the defendant must have had the specific intent to do GBH or resist arrest

Exam Qs