- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Mandair (1994) HL: Key Takeaways for Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Case Facts:
Case Facts:
- The defendant (D), in a fit of temper, threw a container of acidic cleanser at his wife, causing severe facial injuries.
- D was charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- D was found not guilty of the Section 18 offense (GBH with intent).
- D was found guilty of a Section 20 offense (inflicting GBH).
- "Causing" grievous bodily harm (s.18) is as wide as, or wider than, "inflicting" grievous bodily harm (s.20).
- A jury can convict a defendant charged under s.18 of the alternative offence under s.20.
- Relationship between "Causing" and "Inflicting": This case clarifies that the term "causing" in s.18 encompasses "inflicting" in s.20. This means the actus reus for s.18 can be established by proving the actus reus for s.20, if the required mens rea for s.18 is also present.
- Alternative Verdict: Mandair confirms that a defendant charged with the more serious offense of s.18 can be convicted of the lesser offense of s.20 if the evidence supports it, but the intent element of s.18 is not proven.
- Focus on Intent: The key distinction between s.18 and s.20, highlighted by this case, is the mens rea. S.18 requires intent to cause GBH, whereas s.20 has a lower mens rea requirement.
0 Comments