r v bollom
Due to his injury, he may experience memory 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. Accordingly, the defendant appealed. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. Often such injuries did get infected and lead to death. protected from the offender. As with any problem question on non-fatal offences against the person, make sure that you read the question in full first and check that the victim does not die as a result of the harm. T v DPP (2003)- loss of consciousness 25% off till end of Feb! R v Brown (Anthony) [1994] 1 AC 212. by Will Chen; 2.I or your money back Check out our premium contract notes! In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. 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. There are serious issues with the description of the harm the provisions encompass: -. R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 Whether a jury may consider a victim's particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. The aim of sentencing an offender is to punish the offender which can include going to There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. Battery is the physical extension to assault and not only includes violence, but can mean any unwanted touching. The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. Examples where lawful force could be used might include force used in self-defence or defence of another, or where the force is threatened or used by a police officer in the execution of their duties. however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was It uses outdated language that is now misinterpreted in modern For example, the actus reus of the offence of criminal damage is that property belonging to 2003-2023 Chegg Inc. All rights reserved. Such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling. AR - R v Bollom. The word grievous is taken to mean serious. In R v Bollom, it was also decided that the age and health of the victim should play a part in assessing the severity of the injuries caused. It is the absolute maximum harm inflicted upon a person without it proving fatal. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. In R v Johnson (Beverley) [2016] EWCA Crim 10; [2016] 4 WLR 57, at para. His appeal was allowed, holding that the correct interpretation of maliciously for the purposes of s.20 is intent or a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm and being reckless as to that harm occurring. Zeika was so terrified, she turned to run and fell down the stairs, breaking her, top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily, The actus reus for Jon is putting on a scary mask and hiding at the top of the stairs and the. 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 Parmenter. The victim turned to the defendant and demanded to know where his friend had gone. Tragically he caused serious injuries to the bone structures in the limbs of his infant son and, as a result of the heavy way he had handled him, and he was convicted on four counts of causing GBH under s.20. 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. Significance of V's age. For example, dangerous driving. He suffered genital herpes, but had unprotected sex and acknowledged acting recklessly. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her. R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34 clarified that the harm does not have to be physical and that a serious psychiatric injury could amount to GBH. - no expectation of BODILY HARM -no need to look for good reason of activity, if did not foresee/intend ABH, for agreement to risk, must have actual knowledge of HIV and understand the implication - reckless transmission = GBH, Like Brown, activities unpredictably dangerous (criminal under article 8), must be a good reason for causing harm - sexual gratification is not a good reason, must be good reason - tattoo was done for end product and not sexual gratification, consent to rough and undisciplined horseplay is a defence (s.20) - had genuine belief (was reasonable) that he had consented to the throwing, if consent or belief in consent = no offence? Grievous bodily harm (GBH) and Wounding are the most serious of the non-fatal offences against the person, charged under s.18 and s.20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Furthermore, that they intended some injury or were reckless as to the injury being caused. Flashcards. usually given for minor offences. Any other such detainment is unlikely to be lawful. A two-inch bruise for example on said 20-year-old might be painful but not really serious, whereas on a new born baby this would likely be indicative of a very severe risk to the health of the child. top of the stairs, Zeika was bound to fall especially if she is a person who gets scared easily. Key point. COULDNT ESTABLISH WOUNDING R v Morrison D seized and arrested by female p.o., d dragged her out of a smashed window DIDNT RESIST ARREST Case Summary R v Bollom 19. It was not necessary to prove that the harm was life-threatening or dangerous or permanent. D dropped his partner's baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on V's leg. Occasioning Per Fulford J: We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context. ([]). Biological GBH [Biological GBH] _is another aspect. The alternative actus reus of inflicting grievous bodily harm should be considered. Focusing on the facts of Mr Burstows case, the defendant had become obsessed with a woman and began stalking her, carrying out random acts such as damaging her car and breaking into her home, stealing her clothes, throwing condoms all over her garden, subjecting her to silent phone calls and sending hate mail. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 47. In the case of R v Martin, the defendant placed an iron bar across the doorway of a theatre and then turned the lights off, causing panic. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. At trial the judge directed the jury that malicious meant wicked and the defendant was convicted. For example, dangerous driving. 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 Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the more crimes being committed by them. It can be an act of commission or act of omission, The defendant was not familiar with being around children and had no idea how to handle a young baby. Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. 2. The defendant and his friend were out in the early hours of the morning. The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one. 2.I or your money backCheck out our premium contract notes! Hide Show resource information. Looking for a flexible role? 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. 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. The defendant was out in the pub when she saw her husbands ex-girlfriend. All of the usual defences are available in relation to a charge of GBH. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 . Harrow LBC V Shah 1999. Reduce Whether a jury may consider a victims particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. The actus reus of a s offence is identical to the actus reus of a s offence. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. committing similar offences. Lastly a prison sentence-prison 44 Q (DPP V Smith, R V Bollom) Mens rea: intention or recklessness to cause some harm (R V Parmenter) Malicious wounding section 20 offences against the Person act 1861 The draft Bill proposed amending s.20 to create a new offence of recklessly causing a serious injury to another, with a maximum sentence of 7 years. This button displays the currently selected search type. As with the law on ABH, the level of harm for GBH can include serious psychiatric injury. 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) In Collins v Wilcock, the defendant was a police officer who took hold of a womans arm in order to prevent her walking away from him as he was questioning her about alleged prostitution. which will affect him mentally. Answering a homicide question in terms of s.18 and s.20 offences is an easy way to lose marks in an exam and one which can be avoided! trends shows that offenders are still offending the second time after receiving a fine and Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. There is criticism with regards to the definition of wounding which can be satisfied by a very low level of harm, for example a paper cut. 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. We do not provide advice. R v Bollom [2004]2 Cr App R 50 The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter. An intent to wound is insufficient. This can be established by applying the objective test and surrounding case law to assess whether the harm is really serious as per the Smith definition. This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. She succeeded in her case that the officer had committed battery, as he had gone beyond mere touching and had tried to restrain her, even though she was not being arrested. If you are considering attempting this topic in an exam, then it will pay to do some further reading and also to conduct your own critical analysis of the two provisions. He does not inform Tom that he is being arrested and when later questioned by his colleague he fails to give a reason for making the arrest. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? harm shall be liable Any assault for a discharge or a fine but not so serious that a sentence must be given. Also, this another must be destroyed or damaged. The CPS Charging Standards seek to address this by stating that a minor injury as such should be bought under s.47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm, however these are just guidelines and are not legally binding. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. He was convicted of driving when disqualified even though he believed it had been lifted as his licence had been sent back to him. Furthermore, there is no offence if the victim perceives that there is no threat. georgia_pearce51. Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. This is well illustrated in the case of R v Nelson, where the Court of Appeal stated that What is required for common assault is for the defendant to have done something of a physical kind which causes someone else to apprehend that they are about to be struck. MR don't need to foresee serious injury, just some . The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. The crime Janice commited is serious and with a high PC is questionable. Only an intention to kill or cause GBH i s needed to . take victim as you find them, bruising can be GBH. Check out Adapt the A-level & GCSE revision timetable app. For the purposes of intention to cause GBH the maliciously element of the mens rea imposes no further requirement. R v Roberts (1972). There is confusing terminology, especially with regards to maliciously and inflict. Until then, there was no unlawful force applied. The CPS Charging Standards do offer some guidance as to the type of injuries that may amount to GBH. the two is the mens rea required. Whilst a s.20 offence may be committed recklessly, the s.18 offence specifically requires intention. 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.
