LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-R v. Fallon (1994)
​Proposed Changes to Offences Against the Person Act 1861
I. Case: R v. Fallon (1994)
  • Facts: The defendant (D), while being arrested, turned and shot a police officer.
  • Held: The Court of Appeal determined that the mens rea (mental element) required for attempted murder is intent to kill only. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) is insufficient.
II. Context: Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Review
  • Current Status: The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is undergoing significant review.
  • Proposed Legislation: The Offences Against the Person Bill (1998, though note this bill is outdated and likely replaced by more recent reform proposals) seeks to modernize and simplify the definitions of offenses.
III. Key Proposed Changes (Replacing s. 18, 20, and 47 of the 1861 Act)
  • Current Offenses (being replaced):
    • s. 18: Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
    • s. 20: Inflicting grievous bodily harm
    • s. 47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
  • Proposed New Offenses:
    • Intentionally causing serious injury: (Corresponds roughly to s. 18 but with more modern language)
    • Recklessly causing serious injury: (Corresponds roughly to s. 20 but with more modern language)
    • Intentionally or recklessly causing injury: (Corresponds roughly to s. 47 but with more modern language)
IV. Key Takeaways
  • Fallon Clarifies Mens Rea: Fallon reinforces that attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill.
  • Modernization of Language: The proposed changes primarily aim to update the terminology used in the 1861 Act, making it more accessible and precise.
  • Simplification of Offenses: The Bill seeks to consolidate and clarify the existing offenses, leading to a more coherent legal framework.​
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v. Mowatt (1967)
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.
Charge: Malicious Wounding
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.
Significance:
  • 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.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Mandair (1994) HL: Key Takeaways for Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Case Facts:
  • The defendant (D), in a fit of temper, threw a container of acidic cleanser at his wife, causing severe facial injuries.
Charge:
  • D was charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Outcome:
  • D was found not guilty of the Section 18 offense (GBH with intent).
  • D was found guilty of a Section 20 offense (inflicting GBH).
Legal Principle Established (Per Lord MacKay):
  • "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.
Implications for Understanding Sections 18 and 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.​
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- R v. Miller (1954) & Actual Bodily Harm
Core Case: R v. Miller (1954)
Facts:
  • Defendant (D) engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with his wife.
  • The wife subsequently experienced a "hysterical and nervous condition."
Legal Issue:
  • Whether psychological harm resulting from non-consensual sexual intercourse constitutes "actual bodily harm" (ABH) under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Holding:
  • The Court held that D was guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Key Quote (Lynskey J):
  • "...if a person is caused hurt or injury resulting, not in any physical injury, but in an injury to the state of his mind for the time being, that is within the definition of 'actual bodily harm'!"
Significance & Analysis:
  • This case establishes that psychiatric injury (even without physical injury) can constitute actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  • The ruling broadens the definition of "bodily harm" to encompass psychological well-being.
Important Considerations:
  • Causation: The psychological harm must be caused by the assault.
  • Threshold: The harm must be more than mere emotions; it needs to be an injury to the state of mind.
Further Questions:
  • Do all adverse effects on a person's mental state meet the threshold for actual bodily harm, or is there a degree of severity required?
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Chan-Fook (1994)
Case Facts:
  • The defendant (D) aggressively questioned the victim (V) regarding a ring theft.
  • D dragged V to an upstairs room and locked him inside.
  • V, fearing D's return, escaped through a window and sustained injuries.
Charge:
  • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
Holding:
  • D was found not guilty of assault occasioning ABH.
Key Legal Principles Established:
  1. Definition of "Actual Bodily Harm" and Psychiatric Injury:
    • "Actual bodily harm" (ABH) can include psychiatric injury.
    • However, it does not include mere emotions such as fear or panic.
    • It does not include transient states of mind that are not indicative of a clinically recognized psychiatric condition.
    • Expert Evidence: Expert evidence is required to prove psychiatric injury. Without it, the jury should not be instructed on the possibility of psychiatric injury.
  2. Scope of "The Body":
    • The "body" encompasses all physical parts, including organs, nervous system, and brain.
    • Therefore, injury to any of these parts, specifically those responsible for mental health and faculties, can constitute bodily injury.
  3. "State of Mind":
    • The phrase "state of mind" is unscientific and confusing.
    • It should be avoided when determining whether psychiatric injury has been caused.
Implications for Study:
  • Understand the distinction between emotional distress and psychiatric injury in the context of ABH. Mere emotional upset is insufficient for a conviction.
  • Recognize the importance of expert medical evidence in establishing psychiatric injury.
  • Grasp the broad definition of "the body" in legal terms and its extension to include mental health-related components.
  • Avoid using the term "state of mind" in legal analysis regarding psychiatric injury claims; focus on clinically recognized conditions.
Picture
Published on
IkembaraXtra-Case Law- Ireland; Burstow (1997) HL: Study Guide
Case Summary:
  • The House of Lords case Ireland; Burstow (1997) HL, consolidated two appeals concerning the interpretation of "bodily harm" under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861).
    • Ireland: Made repeated silent phone calls and heavy breathing to three victims, causing psychiatric illness. Convicted under s.47 OAPA 1861.
    • Burstow: Stalked victim for eight months, causing severe depression. Convicted under s.20 OAPA 1861.
  • Both defendants appealed, arguing that psychiatric illness does not constitute "bodily harm" under sections 20 and 47 of the OAPA 1861.
Issue:
  • Does "bodily harm" under sections 18, 20, and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 include psychiatric illness?
Holding (Per Lord Steyn):
  • The House of Lords held that "bodily harm" does include recognizable psychiatric illness.
  • Lord Steyn explicitly endorsed the reasoning in R v Chan-Fook, stating it provided a sound and essential clarification of the law.
Significance:
  • Established Psychiatric Harm as Bodily Harm: This case definitively established that psychiatric illness can constitute "bodily harm" within the meaning of sections 18, 20, and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  • Clarification of the Law: It clarified the scope of "bodily harm," ensuring that the law keeps pace with modern understanding of harm, including psychological harm.​
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law -R v Morris (1998)
Subject: Criminal Law; Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)
Citation: R v Morris (1998) (Jurisdiction: England and Wales, presumed from the context)
Facts:
  • Defendant (D) stalked the Victim (V).
  • V experienced physical symptoms: joint and abdominal pain, sleeplessness.
  • V experienced psychological symptoms: tension, fear of being alone.
  • D was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
  • Trial judge refused prosecution's request for adjournment to present psychiatric evidence regarding V's symptoms. The judge believed non-physical injuries could not constitute ABH.
Issue:
Can psychiatric evidence be adduced to prove actual bodily harm for non-physical injuries?
Held:
  • In cases where V alleges non-physical injuries resulting from a non-physical assault, psychiatric evidence must be presented before the case goes to the jury.
  • This evidence is necessary to establish whether D's conduct caused V's injuries.
  • The requirement to adduce psychiatric evidence applies even when injuries are not directly inflicted physically.
Key Takeaways:
  • Psychiatric Evidence Essential: This case emphasizes the necessity of psychiatric evidence when claiming ABH based on psychological harm leading to physical symptoms.
  • Causation: The psychiatric evidence is crucial to establish a causal link between the defendant's actions (stalking) and the victim's injuries.
  • Scope of ABH: This case suggests that psychological harm (induced by stalking) leading to physical symptoms can fall within the definition of actual bodily harm. However, this determination requires expert psychiatric evaluation.
Significance:
  • Clarifies the role of psychiatric evidence in establishing ABH where the injury stems from psychological distress.
  • Highlights that "actual bodily harm" is not limited to solely physical injuries directly inflicted.
  • Emphasizes the need for expert medical testimony to prove causation and the nature of the harm in cases involving psychological distress.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Roberts (1971) - Causation & "Daftness" in Assault
Citation: Roberts (1971)
Context: Defendant (D) made unwanted advances towards the Victim (V) while driving a car. V jumped out of the moving car and sustained injuries.
Charge: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Issue: Whether V's act of jumping out of the car broke the chain of causation between D's assault and V's injuries.
Holding: D was found guilty. V's reaction did not negate causation.
Reasoning (per Stephenson LJ):
  • Causation is established if V's reaction was reasonably foreseeable.
  • The chain of causation is broken (i.e., novus actus interveniens) only if V's actions were "so 'daft' . or so unexpected . that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it."
    • This introduces the concept of proportionality. The victim's reaction must be proportionate to the threat presented by the defendant's actions.
    • If the reaction is disproportionate to the threat (i.e., "daft"), it is considered a novus actus interveniens.
Key takeaway / Legal Principle:
A defendant can be held liable for injuries sustained by a victim who attempts to escape an assault, even if the victim's actions contribute to those injuries, as long as the victim's actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's assault. The victim's reaction must not be so unexpected or disproportionate to the threat that it is considered a novus actus interveniens.
Study Questions:
  • What constitutes a "reasonably foreseeable" reaction in the context of assault?
  • How does the "daftness" test from Roberts affect the assessment of causation?
  • How does this case relate to the general principles of causation in criminal law?
  • Under what circumstances might a victim's actions break the chain of causation following an assault?
  • Why is it significant that the court considered what a "reasonable man" would foresee?​
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Savage; Parmenter (1992) - Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Key Issue: Mens Rea requirement for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
Facts:
  • Savage: Intentionally threw beer at V. The glass slipped from S's hand, striking V and causing a cut.
  • Parmenter: Roughly handled his child, resulting in broken arms and legs.
Holding:
  • Savage: Not guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.
  • Parmenter: Guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.
Legal Principle Established:
The offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm requires:
  1. Actus Reus: An assault (either battery or assault in the Fagan sense) causing actual bodily harm.
  2. Mens Rea: The mens rea for common assault (i.e., intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence, or intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful physical force.)
Important Quote (Lord Ackner):
  • "The prosecution are not obliged to prove that the defendant intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused."
Analysis & Implications:
  • The mens rea for ABH does not require the defendant to foresee that their actions might cause actual bodily harm.
  • It is sufficient that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the assault (the initial act of causing apprehension or applying force). The actual bodily harm that results need not be intended or foreseen.
  • This ruling lowers the burden of proof for the prosecution in ABH cases, as they only need to prove the mens rea for the initial assault, not for the resulting harm.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-JJC v Eisenhower (1983) & Section 20 OAPA 1861
I. Case: JJC v Eisenhower (1983)
  • Facts:
    • V was shot near the eye with an air gun pellet.
    • Injury: Bruise below eyebrow and fluid in the front of the eye.
  • Issue:
    • Whether the injury constituted a "wound" for the purposes of malicious wounding.
  • Held:
    • D was not guilty of maliciously wounding.
  • Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning):
    • A wound requires a break in the continuity of the whole skin.
    • Internal rupturing of blood vessels (e.g., a bruise) does not constitute a wound.
II. Context: Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
  • Section 20 OAPA 1861 governs two offenses:
    • Malicious Wounding
    • Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)
III. Key Takeaways & Implications
  • Definition of "Wound": Eisenhower establishes a strict definition of "wound" as requiring a break in the outer layer of the skin.
  • Distinction between Wounding and GBH: While the case focuses on "wounding," it's crucial to understand that Section 20 also covers inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm. Internal injuries can constitute GBH, even if they are not wounds.
  • Practical Application: This case clarifies the legal threshold for a specific type of offense (malicious wounding) and highlights the importance of precise definitions in criminal law.
Picture

Author

Learn the fact about law