Michael Gatto Obituary, Worst County Jails In Michigan, Why Is There A Shortage Of Diet Sundrop, Articles R

another must be destroyed or damaged. Accordingly, the defendant appealed. fight is NOT one, must be a good reason for activity for consent to be a defence - HofL held sado-masochisitc behaviour was not one, - had agreement to act itself, activity (battery under s47) did cause harm so cannot rely on consent? This is shown in the case of, Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where his future mother-in-law was sleeping and was poisoned by the gas. and hid at the top of the stairs. serious. As well as this, words can also negate a threat. R v Savage (1991): on a s charge, a conviction under s is available as an alternative the individual, R v Billinghurst (1978)- broken jaw To conclude, the OAPA clearly remains to be There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. R v Bollom. It is this element of the offence that provides the crucial distinction between the s.18 charge and the s.20 charge. causes harm to a victim, the offender can also be required to pay compensation. intended, for example R v Nedrick (1986). DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 explained that GBH should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, that is really serious harm. In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. Consider that on a literal interpretation a paper cut could constitute a wound which is clearly vastly less serious than the level of harm encompassed by GBH so it seems wrong that they are classed as equally serious for the purposes of charging! Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? T v DPP (2003)- loss of consciousness The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. LIST OF CASES, STATUTES AND STATUTORy INSTRUMENTS VII R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 72, 74 R v Catt [2013] EWCA Crim 1187 6 R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 74 It was a decision for the jury. V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how. 44 Q This does not marry up to wounding as society would understand it to be. (i) Intention to do some grievous bodily harm or (ii) with intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. Battery is the physical extension to assault and not only includes violence, but can mean any unwanted touching. R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 . convicted of gbh s.18 oapa. crime by preventing the offender from committing more crime and putting others off from The statutory policy is to apply pressure to those who have dissipated (or more usually laundered) their assets during a . Therefore, through relevant sporting caselaw, it will be critically examined whether a participant's injury-causing act is an . The defendant was charged with the s.20 offence but argued that he had not inflicted the GBH suffered by his victim on her in accordance with the Wilson understanding of the term as he had at no point applied any force to her, either directly or indirectly. georgia_pearce51. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the defendant parked his car on a police officers foot. whilst attempting to arrest Janice.-- In Janices case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of It can be an act of commission or act of omission, Section 20 of the Offence Against the Persons Act provides: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof. R V Bosher 1973. unsatisfactory on the basis that it is unclear, uses old language and is structurally flawed. Such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. PC is questionable. Or can be reckless if high risk and consent is not sought for that risk R v Konzani 2005 was required a brain surgery which is a severe case. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 47. top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily. AR - R v Burstow. unless done with a guilty mind. Bodily harm needs no explanation, and grievous means no Due to the age of the Act and numerous issues identified with the offences set out there is lots of discussion surrounding reform of the law in relation to the s.18 and s.20 offences. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: Free law resources to assist you with your LLB or SQE studies! something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of, however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was, foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. The draft Bill actually sets out a definition of injury in order to provide clear and specific, legally binding guidance as to what this entails. The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. His friend stole some money from the victim and ran off. The Court of Appeal referred the question to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. Flashcards. The defendant appealed contending that it was necessary to establish a subjective appreciation of the risk and not an objective ruling that he should have foreseen the risk of injury. His intentions of wanting to hurt the The defendant felt threatened by the demands and knocked the victim to the floor, repeatedly punching him in the face. Terms in this set (13) Facts. R v Ratnasabapathy (2009)- brain damage directed by the doctor. The offence of assault is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. It can be seen from this that a general knowledge of PACE or indeed law in general is sufficient to identify that this is not a lawful detainment and therefore any reckless GBH or wounding caused by Tom in intending to resist the detainment by the police officer will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of s.18. Held: The judge had been correct to say that what constituted grievous bodily harm had to be looked at in the context of the person harmed. 43 Q What is the mens rea for section 20 GBH? community sentence-community sentences are imposed for offences which are too serious inflict may be taken to be interchangeable, I can find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the How much someone is Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments. The defendant caused bruising, abrasions and cuts to the baby's body which were claimed to be accidental, the D and V's mother blamed a third party. Lecture Notes - Psychology: Counseling Psychology Notes (Lecture 1), Pdf-order-block-smart-money-concepts compress, 04a Practice papers set 2 - Paper 1H - Solutions, Buckeye Chiller Systems and the Micro Fin Joint Venture Case Study Solution & Analysis, Phn tch im ging v khc nhau gia hng ha sc lao ng v hng ha thng thng, Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 1 What is Economics, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. The scope of this foresight was highlighted in DPP v A (2000) 164 JP 317 where the Court clarified that the defendant is only required to foresee that some harm might occur, not that it would occur. Balancing Conflicting Interests Between Human Rights. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Theyre usually given for less serious crimes. In this casethe defendant put a metal bar across the exit of a theatre, turned off the lights and then shouted fire, fire! which provoked people to run towards the exit where the bar was. shows he did not mean to cause GBH s20 therefore he may receive a few years of . Since this act was established in the 1800s it may not apply to crimes today. The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. Accordingly, as there is no strict legal test as to ascertaining what really serious harm is, it is necessary to look to case studies for guidance. The OAPA needs reforming and should be replaced with new legislation. When that level of harm is inflicted on a person it is often left to fate as to whether or not it will prove fatal. The officer cut her finger on the needle and the defendant was found by the court to be liable for battery, due to the omission. The offence is indictable only which means it must be heard and sentenced at crown court. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. which will affect him mentally. R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372 R v Bowyer [2013] WLR(D) 130. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. loss etc. Any other such detainment is unlikely to be lawful. This was the situation until R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54. Result, crimes where the actus reus of the offence requi, as directed.-- In Beth's case, she is a care professional who has a duty to look after her, patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessne, indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! He was charged with the offence of administering a noxious substances s.23 Act which required the defendant to maliciously administer a noxious thing to endanger life or inflict GBH. Section 18 offences are the most serious of the non-fatal offences against the person and often it is sheer luck on the part of the defendant that the victim does not die. decides not to give a criminal conviction, they will be given a discharge. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. At trial the judge directed the jury incorrectly, stating that malicious meant that the unlawful act was deliberately aimed towards the victim and resulted in the wound. It is not unforeseeable that one of these will die as a result of the punch and sadly this often happens. Following the case law, it can be properly stated that the mens rea of maliciously is in other words, a foresight by the defendant of a risk of some harm occurring. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. All of the usual defences are available in relation to a charge of GBH. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someones cheek. The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. ), Actual Bodily harm and Grievous Bodily Harm, Criminal-LAW- Revision Consent, Liability, Defences AND Causation, Criminal LAW Revision - Theft Robber Burglary Neccesity, Public Law (Constitutional, Administrative And Human Rights Law) (LA1020), Politics and International Relations (L200), Introduction to English Language (EN1023), Extensive lecture notes from the lectures Equity and Trust Law 2013/14 (64 pages), Macroeconomics Class - Complete Set Of Lecture Notes, Principles of Fashion Marketing- Marketing Audit Report, Endocrinology - Lecture notes 12,13,14,15, 314255810 02 Importance of Deen in Human Life, Introduction To Accounting Summary/Revision Notes, Changes in Key Theme - Psychology Revision for Component 2 OCR, Q1 Explain the relationship between resilience and mental wellbeing, Social Area - Psychology Revision for Component 2 OCR. statutory definition for assault or battery. There was a lot of bad feeling the two women and the defendant was unhappy to see the her. The facts of the cases of both men were similar. She turned up at her sons work dressed in female clothes and he was humiliated. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. It was presupposed to mean a direct application of harm with the understanding that a s20 offence required the GBH to be caused directly to the victim. subjective, not only on the foresight of the risk, but also on the reasonableness of the R v Chan Fook (1994) Psychiatric harm can amount to ABH (however mere emotions can not) . For an essay question you may be asked whether you feel the two should be charged under the same offence given the difference in severity. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. defendant's actions. shouted boo. This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. usually given for minor offences. Subjective recklessness is that a defendant must A report has been filed showing Oliver, one of Beths patients take victim as you find them, bruising can be GBH. [3] [25-28]. R v Bollom (2004) Which case decided that assault can be GBH if the victim inflicts GBH upon themselves in order to escape the defendant? Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. Once the level of harm has been quantified, it needs to be shown that the harm was inflicted by the defendant. It was not necessary to prove that the harm was life-threatening or dangerous or permanent. Temporary injuries can be sufficient. 27th Jun 2019 v Pittwood (1902) would back this up as the defendant did not adequately fulfill their duty. This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the mens rea which is the intention An intent to wound is insufficient. D must cause the GBH to the victim. These include: It can be seen from the list above that aside from broken bones, there is a reluctance to provide specific injuries and the focus instead is on the impact of the injury rather than the injury itself. Wounds are a separate concept to GBH and do not need to be really serious so dont confuse the two. Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. Case in Focus: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. Consider two different defendants punching two different victims in the head. In-house law team. The positi, defendant's actions. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. This was affirmed in the case of R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 which considered the meaning of maliciously specifically in relation to the s.20 offence. For instance, there is no The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. Furthermore, there is no offence if the victim perceives that there is no threat. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! and get an apology. Pay attention to this section as for an essay question you may be asked to provide a discussion as to the meaning of inflict. This was decided in the case of __DPP __v Smith, where the level of injury was said to be really serious harm. Until then, there was no unlawful force applied. R v Roberts (1972). The actus reus for Beth would Intention to do some grievous bodily harm. Bollom [2003]). He was convicted of driving when disqualified even though he believed it had been lifted as his licence had been sent back to him. With regards to s.18, the draft Bill proposed an offence of intentionally causing serious injury to another. carrying out his duty which she did not allow. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The actus reus for the offence can be broken down as follows: These criteria are satisfied in the same way as for the s.18 offence, with the only difference being in relation to the GBH which can be caused rather than inflicted. The act i, unless done with a guilty mind. For the purposes of intention to cause GBH the maliciously element of the mens rea imposes no further requirement. Test. However, today this is not the case and it is unusual for such wounds to escalate to that scale. Jon, aged 14 decided to play a practical joke on his friend Zeika. is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant), R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes R v Bollom (2004) R v Dica (2004) JCC v Eisenhower (1983) R v Burstow (1997) R v Dica (2004) MR Intention or subjective recklessness to cause some harm R v Parmenter (1991) Trial and sentencing Triable either way offence - In Crown or Magistrates - Max sentence 5 years custodial Intending to humiliate her, the defendant threw the contents of a drink over the victim. If there is no wound as per the Eisenhower definition, then this does not negate the actus reus of the offence. Such injuries would have been less serious on a grown adult, and the jury could properly allow for that. It wasnt until the defendant decided to leave the car there that the battery occurred. The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd: 1978, Lamb v Camden London Borough Council: 1981, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. A R v Martin. If the offence 6 of 1980 have established that a person may give valid consent to GBH, but only where it is in the public interest for them to do so (see Chapter 4.1 for a more in-depth discussion as to this). the two is the mens rea required. Given memory partitions of 100K, 500K, 200K, 300K, and 600K (in order), how would each of the First-fit, Best-fit, and Worst-fit algorithms place processes of 212K, 417K, 112K, and 426K (in order)? verdict PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb This was then added to in R v Chan Fook, where the court decided that psychiatric injury could be classed as actual bodily harm, but that it must be not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. R v Chan-Fook (1994)- psychiatric injury, but not mere emotions This is well illustrated by DPP v Smith, where the defendant cut off the victims pony tail and some hair from the top of her head without her consent. indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. As the amount of hair was substantial, the Divisional Court decided that the hair-cutting should amount to ABH. This was changed in R v Saunders, where the word really was removed from the definition so as to clarify the nature of the offence. not necessary for us to set out why that was so because the statutory language is clear. . Result for a discharge or a fine but not so serious that a sentence must be given. The main issues with the current law can be identified as follows: This is another hot topic for an essay question on these offences. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was . R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. - playing with fire proof suits, if self-administered, this breaks the chain of causation, substance noxious so long as it irritates another - can be so small a dose that add up, did not foresee actions causing harm =NO MR, unlawful act of administering noxious substance caused death -, best interests defence, unable to make decision themselves - woman mentally handicapped, sexual urges but did not understand pregnancy, would be traumatic - didn't want to separate from male (sterilised her in best interest), best interests - donate bone marrow to sister so she lives and can visit - cannot consent nor understand the circumstances, Caesarean in bet interest (was actually a battery), abolish defence of chastisement - charged with inflicting GBH, used defence - inhumane - may cases - should change legislation. Match. R v Wilson [1984] AC 242 overruled Clarence in this regard and held this was not the case. patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessness she This offence is triable either way which means it can be heard and sentenced at either the magistrates court or crown court, depending on the seriousness of the specific offence and the defendants wishes. For example in Tuberville v Savage, the defendant threatened the victim, but then qualified the threat by stating that the threat wouldnt be carried out at that time, showing that he wasnt going to do anything. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. If this is evidenced, then the actus reus for the s.20 offence is satisfied and it is not necessary to prove the GBH element in addition for a charge to be available as this is an alternative element. Consent is no defence to inflicting actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or wounding i.e., ss 20 and 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her, This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the men, Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. The House held that It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. as directed.-- In Beth's case, she is a care professional who has a duty to look after her The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18. more and no less than really serious, It is not necessary that the harm should be either permanent or dangerous. Just because a defendant intends to avoid arrest this does not automatically mean that he intends harm or is subjectively reckless as to whether some harm will be caused. For example, punching someone in the face, intending to break their nose. R v Tierney (2009): on a s charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative The crime Janice commited is serious and with a high This button displays the currently selected search type. However, following R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 the jury can find intention where although the result was not the exact desired consequence held by a defendant, it could be appreciated by the defendant himself that it was a virtually certain consequence of his act. culpability it is more likely a 5 years imprisonment with a fine due to the fact the police officer Case Summary Section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 provides: Whosoever 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, shall be guilty of felony. A Causation- factual and legal. Before this acquisition A company issued to P, a bank, a debenture giving P a charge over the company's assets in respect of any sums Our academic writing and marking services can help you! To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. It carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. With regards to consent, R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and Attorney Generals Reference no. This obiter was confirmed in R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. A harm can be a. GBH even though it would not pose a risk to the life of the victim (R v . Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, The normal rules of causation apply to dete, is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so tr, Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. 26, Edis J (giving the judgment of the Court) said that R v Smith (Kim) "supports the proposition that this is the purpose of the tainted gift regime. In relation to this element of the mens rea, it is necessary for the prosecution also to prove the maliciously element. In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of, amongst other things, the effect of the harm on the particular individual. 42 Q What else must be proved in GBH? Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose The mens rea of GBH __can be recklessness or intention. but because she didn't do this it comes under negligence and a breach of duty. Test. For the purposes of the provisions injury would encompass physical injury, such as pain, unconsciousness and any impairment to physical condition, as well as mental injury which would include any impairment of a persons mental health, The draft Bill expressly defines intention and recklessness and states that for the purposes of the offences the harm intended or foreseen must related to the act committed, which would overturn the law established in. ), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. care as a nurse because its her job to look after her patients and make sure they are safe, voluntary act and omission is that it does not make an individual liable for a criminal act, unless it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to care whereas a. voluntary act is a willing movement to harm someone. There is confusing terminology, especially with regards to maliciously and inflict. Whilst a s.20 offence may be committed recklessly, the s.18 offence specifically requires intention. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. It Is Whilst the injuries per se did not merit a charge of gross bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, at first instance the judge directed the jury to consider the young age of the victim, resulting in the defendant being found guilty under s. 20, which the defendant subsequently appealed. Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. Beths statement indicates that she couldnt be bothered to turn Oliver The difference between a mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks).