- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v. Mowatt (1967)
Citation: R v. Mowatt (1967) (Court of Appeal)
Facts:
Held: D was guilty of malicious wounding. The court held that it was unnecessary to prove intention or recklessness concerning the specific wounding or grievous bodily harm that resulted.
Key Principles:
Citation: R v. Mowatt (1967) (Court of Appeal)
Facts:
- V seized D by the lapels, demanding the return of stolen money.
- D struck V several times, causing V to lose consciousness.
Held: D was guilty of malicious wounding. The court held that it was unnecessary to prove intention or recklessness concerning the specific wounding or grievous bodily harm that resulted.
Key Principles:
- Diplock LJ's Statement: It is sufficient that the defendant foresaw that some physical harm, even of a minor nature, might result from their actions.
- "Maliciously" under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:
- Section 18 (Wounding with Intent): The intent required under s.18 is more specific than the foresight of consequences implied by the word "maliciously." When instructing a jury on s. 18 offences, the word "maliciously" is best avoided.
- Section 20 (Unlawful Wounding): "Maliciously" implies an awareness on the part of the defendant that their act may have the consequence of causing physical harm to some other person.
- Establishes the mental element required for malicious wounding under s. 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- Clarifies that foresight of some physical harm, even minor, is sufficient for the "maliciously" element.
- The principle in Mowatt concerning foresight of some harm was affirmed in Savage; Parmenter.
0 Comments