Murder, manslaughter, assaults, sexual offences and defences.

Authors Avatar

 

Murder, Manslaughter, Assaults, Sexual Offences and Defences

(1678 words).

Section 18 (wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent)

The Actus Reus of Section 18 Of The OAPA 1861.

S.18 OAPA penalises ‘whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously...wound or cause any grievous bodily harm...with intent to do some grievous bodily harm...’ S.20 OAPA penalises ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm...(GBH)’.

The actus Reus under these two offences can either be wounding OR causing/inflicting GBH. ‘Wounding’ means that the continuity of the whole skin is broken - not merely a scratch. Broken limbs, where there is no breaking of the skin, are not wounds. However they do come within GBH, which is defined in R v. Smith {2001} 1 AC 146 as ‘really serious harm’, different in kind to the ‘interference with health and comfort’ suggested as the test of ABH in R v. Miller {1975} 1 WLR 1222. Whether the defendant has, ‘caused’ grievous bodily harm is purely a matter of causation. Lord Mackay in R v. Mandair (1995) 1 AC 208 stated:

‘In the case of “cause”, the nature of the connection is immaterial (provided the chain of events is short enough to satisfy the criminal law of causation)…’

Jack has clearly committed the actus reus of homicide as he has caused James death and there is no intervening causes that may possible break the chain of causation. To be liable for murder he must have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, on the facts of the question it seems quite unlikely that he intended to cause serious bodily harm. He was only out to threaten James at first until he snapped.

The Mens Rea of Section 18 of the OAPA 1861.

There are two parts to section 18, it is an offence which has an ‘ulterior intent’.

First, the defendant must maliciously wound or cause grievous bodily harm. Maliciously means intention or recklessness. However, there is also the ulterior intent. The defendant must also intend Grievous bodily harm. Recklessness is not enough and the intention must be to cause grievous bodily harm (known as malice aforethought) not merely some injury or wound. If this ulterior intention can be shown, the prosecution have also established that the grievous bodily harm was caused maliciously. (R v Cunningham (1981) HL: - Mens rea of murder - intention to commit homicide or grievous bodily harm).

Lord Hailsham LC:

'Malice aforethought has never been limited to the intention to kill or to endanger life'.

Lord Edmund-Davies (dissenting):

'I find it strange passing that a person can be convicted of murder if death results from, say, his intentional breaking of another's arm, it no doubt constituting 'really serious harm. But I recognise the force of the contrary view that the outcome of intentionally inflicting serious harm can be so unpredictable that anyone prepared to act so wickedly has little ground for complaint if, where death results, he is convicted and punished as severely as one who intended to kill.'

Belfon, R v [1976] CA: -  [Mens rea - Assault - specific intent needed for Sec 18] Not Guilty of s.18 Guilty 20 unlawful wounding.

It could be said then that Jack did not form the mens rea for section 18 of the offence (R v. Majewski {1977} AC 443). Jack had a sudden flashback to all the years of torment he had suffered at James' hands. He was in a sudden rage; he was armed with a knife, with which he planed to threaten James with if he gave him any further abuse. Therefore, Jack would be liable for s.20 of the OAPA 1861.

Join now!

Section 20 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

S.20 OAPA penalises ‘Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm...(GBH)’. It must be proved that the defendant intended or risked harm. As you can see from R v. Mowatt (1967) 3 WLR 1192, it is foresight of some harm that is required, not necessarily serious harm. This was upheld in R v. Savage {1992} 1 AC 699.

ACTUS REUS: Causing a wound or inflicting grievous bodily harm

The Actus Reus is the same for this section as it is for section 18. Moreover, as stated Jack dos have the Actus Reus.

...

This is a preview of the whole essay