Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t

4In order to establish David’s guilt or innocence, the issue of causation must also be addressed—this includes the factual ‘but for’ test, legal causation and the absence of an intervening act. This can be dealt with rather quickly. Since Florence’s harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ David’s act, factual causation is easily satisfied. It must now be determined whether David’s conduct was more than a minimal cause of the prohibited consequence and was a significant contribution to it. As there was no other contributing factor, legal causation is also satisfied. Finally, it is clear that there were no intervening acts; therefore all aspects of causation is readily concluded and satisfied.

5Considering David has no plausible defence and all other elements of the offence have been satisfied, it is likely that David will be convicted under s. 47 OAPA 1861. However, according to the new CPS charging standard, it is possible that David may receive a lesser sentence under s.39 Common Assault based on the degree of the injury.

6In respect of the second incident resulting in the s.18 OAPA 1861 charge, the elements AR, MR and causation must once again be satisfied in order to determine the likely outcome of the case, should it go to trial.

7The AR of s.18 is unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm on another person. The victim, Abdul, was ‘badly cut and bruised’ as a direct result of the defendant’s conduct. In the case of Moriarty v Brookes, it was held that a wound requires the continuity of the skin to be broken. In previous cases GBH is defined as being ‘really serious’ or simply ‘serious’ harm. In respect of Abdul’s injuries, not only was there wounding, but he acquired serious harm—referring to the severe concussion and the near fractured skull. This respectively amounts to the satisfaction of the AR.

8The MR for s.18 is the intention to cause GBH. Having been spotted shouting at Abdul just moments earlier, it could be argued that David had already formed the MR to harm Abdul; however, in criminal law, it is a requirement that MR and AR coincide or there be a series of linked transactions. Recklessness is held as insufficient and would not be considered. The prohibited act was not accompanied by the requisite MR and therefore David cannot be convicted under s. 18 but perhaps on the lesser offence of s. 20 under the same facts.

9The AR for s.20 is immediately satisfied as it is the same for s.18. For the MR of s.20 to be satisfied, the defendant must intend or be reckless as to causing some harm (Mowatt, Savage; Parmenter). Since there is no evidence that David intended to harm Abdul, the subjective Cunningham test of recklessness is to be applied. Here, it is held that no matter how reckless, the defendant should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person might result.  Subsequently, it can be held that David was reckless, therefore satisfying the MR.

10The element of causation is satisfied as a) there was no intervening act, b) the prohibited result would not have occurred ‘but for’ David’s conduct and c) he was the ‘substantive and operative’ cause of Abdul’s hurt.

11To conclude, it is very likely that David will be convicted under s. 20 of the OAPA 1861 and may face up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine, not exceeding the statutory maximum.

Word count: 999

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Haralambous, N., Criminal Law Directions, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2010

Wild, C., Weinstein, S., Smith & Keenan’s English Law, Sixteenth Edition, Pearson Education Ltd., Edinburgh, 2010

Cases

Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439

Moriarty v Brooks [1834] 6 C & P 684

R v Belfon [1976] CA WLR 741

R v Donovan [1934] 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA

R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 

R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr. App. R. 279

R v Savage, R v Parmenter [1991] HL

R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

Statutory Material

Section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988

Section 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Section 18, Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Section 20, Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Web Resources

Crown Prosecution Service, Offences Against the Person, , 4/01/2012

House of Lords Judgement,

Lexis Library,  23/11/2011, 28/12/2011, 8/01/2011

---