Grievious Bodily Harm (GBH)

7 Key excerpts on "Grievious Bodily Harm (GBH)"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Beginning Criminal Law

  • Claudia Carr, Maureen Johnson(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Eisenhower’s case, although a membrane had been ruptured internally, causing the bloodshot eye, there was no break in the outer layer of the skin (or eye) – so there was no wound.

  Grievous bodily harm

  Grievous is another archaic word that is not now in common use, but reflects the age of the statute. Like ABH it has had to be redefined by case law for the modern age. In the case of Smith [1961] AC 290, HL the judges decided that grievous meant ‘really serious’. In the later case of Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230 this definition was adjusted. It was decided that the word ‘really’ in the definition of grievous ‘added nothing’. Therefore the meaning we are left with is that GBH means ‘serious bodily harm’. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm suffered by the victim is serious, but – as for ABH – the CPS charging standards give some guidance for prosecutors. An injury is likely to be charged as s 20 if it includes:

  • injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement;
  • broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull, compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
  • injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
  • serious psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.

  Infliction

  In s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA), the GBH must be ‘inflicted’. This led defendants to argue that they had not inflicted harm if there was consent to the action that resulted in the harm. In the old case of Clarence

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Lawcards 2012-2013

  • Routledge(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  [1985] ).

  Although most offences under s 20 will involve an assault, it was decided in R v Wilson [1983] that ‘inflicting’ does not necessarily imply an assault. It would seem that if ‘inflicting’ is to have any meaning at all it is to imply the need for causation. (See also R v Burstow [1997] where GBH, in the form of serious psychiatric injury, was inflicted by means of menacing telephone calls.)

  Mens rea

  The word ‘malicious’ implies a mens rea of intention or recklessness.

  The decision of the court in R v Mowatt [1967] placed a ‘gloss’ on the Cunningham definition of recklessness in relation to s 20 in that the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the possibility of causing the victim some physical harm, albeit not serious harm.

  As such foresight that the victim will be frightened is insufficient to find liability in relation to s 20; as stated above, the defendant must have foreseen some physical harm, if only of a minor character (R v Sullivan [1984] ).

  SECTION 18 OF THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861

  Definition

  By s 18, it is an offence to ‘maliciously … wound or cause any grievous bodily harm … with intent to do some grievous bodily harm’.

  Actus reus

  The actus reus is wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to any person. This is the same as under s 20 but for two differences.

  Firstly, the injuries may be ‘to any person’ (as opposed ‘to any other person’). This suggests that wounding or causing on yourself is only covered by s 18. Secondly, the grievous bodily harm is caused rather than inflicted. Normal rules of causation therefore apply.

  Mens rea

  There are two elements to the mens rea .

  The first element is the same as s 20. The defendant must have ‘maliciously’ wounded or ‘maliciously’ caused grievous bodily harm. As we have seen, the word ‘malicious’ has now been interpreted as requiring intention or recklessness.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Law

  • Jacqueline Martin(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Grievous bodily harm should be given its ordinary and natural meaning of ‘really serious harm’. GBH does not have to be life-threatening, nor does the harm have to have lasting consequences.

      Key Judgment: Viscount Kilmuir LC

  ‘The words “grievous bodily harm” are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning. “Bodily harm” needs no explanation, and “grievous” means … really serious … The prosecution does not have to prove that the harm was life-threatening, dangerous or permanent … There is no requirement that the victim should require treatment or that the harm should extend beyond soft tissue damage.’

  11.3.1

  Bollom [2004] 2 Cr App R 50

      Key Facts

  A 17-month-old child had bruising to her abdomen, both arms and left leg. D was charged with causing grievous bodily harm.

      Key Law

  The severity of the injuries should be assessed according to V’s age and health. Bruising could amount to grievous bodily harm. Bruising of this severity would be less serious on an adult in full health than on a very young child.

  11.3.1

  JCC v Eisenhower [1983] 3 All ER 230

      Key Facts

  V was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet. This did not penetrate the eye but caused severe bleeding under the surface. As there was no cut, it was held that this was not a wound. The cut must be of the whole skin, so that a scratch is not considered a wound.

      Key Law

  To constitute a wound, all the external layers of the skin must be broken. Internal bleeding will not suffice for a wound.

  11.3.2

  Mowatt [1967] 3 All ER 47, (1967) 51 Cr App R 402

      Key Facts

  Either D or his friend had taken £5 from V’s pocket. V realised this and seized D. D hit out at V, allegedly in self-defence, punching him repeatedly until V was nearly unconscious. D was convicted under s 20 OAPA 1861. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction.

      Key Law

  For s 20 there is no need to prove that D had intention to cause serious injury or that he realised there was a risk of serious injury. It is sufficient to prove that D foresaw that some harm might result.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Law

  • (Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Straightforward Publishing Digital

    (Publisher)

  Section 47 of the Offences Against Persons Act 1861 covers actual bodily harm. The act does not define what constitutes actual bodily harm although case law has developed this. The offence is a triable either way offence and there is a maximum sentence of five-years if the case is tried in the Crown Court. If the magistrates agree and the defendant chooses a Magistrates Court trial then the case can be dealt with summarily.

  Actual bodily harm is a form of aggravated assault. Before it is decided that the victim has suffered harm then it is necessary to establish that he has been subject to either assault or battery

  Defining actual bodily harm

  In the case of Miller 1954, the term ‘actual bodily harm’ was said to include ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim’. In the case of Chan-Fook 1994, the Court of Appeal stated that ‘actual bodily harm’

  “are three words in the English language which require no elaboration and in the ordinary course should not receive any. The word ‘harm’ is a synonym for ‘injury’. The word ‘actual’ indicates that the injury should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant....The body of the victim includes all parts of his body, including his organs, nervous system and brain. Bodily injury therefore may include injury to any of those parts of his body responsible for his mental and other faculties”.

  Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm

  Section 20 of the OAPA 1861 states that: ‘whosoever 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’. The maximum punishment for this offence is five years.

  Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm is further defined under s18 of the OAPA 1861, which has been amended by the Criminal Law Act 1967. This section states:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Course Notes: Criminal Law

  • Lisa Cherkassky(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Actus reus case recall for s.20 & s.18...

  Beasley (1981)

  ‘Inflict GBH’ does not require an assault

  JCC v Eisenhower (1983)

  ‘Wound’ must break through the skin

  Wood (1830)

  A broken bone is not a ‘wound’

  DPP v Smith (1961)

  GBH is ‘really serious harm’

  Saunders (1985)

  Direction on ‘serious harm’ will suffice

  Bollom (2003)

  Victim characteristics can be considered

  Burstow (1997)

  A severe depressive illness can be GBH

  9.5.2 Mens Rea for Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent

  • The word ‘maliciously’ refers to intention or recklessness – Cunningham (1957).
  • However, there is a specific intent to do some grievous bodily harm under s.18.
  • Therefore, the word ‘maliciously’ can be disregarded – Mowatt (1967).
  • When it comes to intention, the defendant’s foresight of consequences is evidence of intention only, not intention itself – Moloney (1985).
  • The grievous bodily harm must be a virtual certainty and the defendant must realise that this was the case – Nedrick (1986) and Woollin (1998).
    Checkpoint - grievous bodily harm with intent

    Item on checklist:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  English Law

  • Gary Slapper, David Kelly(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Routledge-Cavendish

    (Publisher)

  JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower (1984), injury to V’s eye caused by airgun pellets fired by D was not a wound. His eye was bruised just below the eyebrow and, for a time afterwards, the fluid in his eye abnormally contained red blood cells but there was no break in the layers of the skin.
• A bruise is not a wound because the outer layer of skin is not broken. A graze or scratch may not be a wound because the inner layer may not be broken.
• Wounds can be minor or serious. If serious then they may amount, in addition, to grievous bodily harm.
• Grievous bodily harm is nothing more than any really serious injury. It might be constituted by injuries such as broken bones, permanent disfigurement, serious loss of blood, significant loss of consciousness and severe psychological/psychiatric illness. In Brown and Stratton (1998), evidence of a broken nose, the loss of three teeth and a laceration over one eye (with other evidence available of gross facial swelling and widespread laceration and bruising) was sufficient to be left to the jury to determine whether it amounted to grievous bodily harm. It may be possible to commit grievous bodily harm by infecting a person with a disease (including sexually transmitted diseases). This area of the law is unclear (and probably requires Parliament’s attention): Dica (2004) Crim LR 944.
• The s 20 and s 18 offences differ in requiring grievous bodily harm to have been ‘inflicted’ and ‘caused’ respectively. Until recently, this distinction was viewed as significant and had caused much judicial and academic soul searching. The House of Lords has now put an end to the anguish by declaring that there is no significant difference and that ‘inflict’ under s 20 is just as broad as ‘cause’ under s 18. In particular, an infliction can take place without the application of force, direct or indirect. This enlightened approach was prompted by the need for a judicial response to conduct generally now described as ‘stalking’. In cases such as Burstow