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. trends shows that offenders are still offending the second time after receiving a fine and The aim of sentencing an offender is to punish the offender which can include going to 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. Originally the case of R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 considered this in relation to the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and held it to mean intention or subjective recklessness. The offence of battery is also defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. Inflict for this purpose simply means cause. D was convicted under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) D appealed on the basis that V's injuries did not . In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. He had touched himself and then failing to wash his hands had cared for the children in assisting with washing and dressing them, causing them to contract the disease. Obiter in R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 extended this further to suggest that there is no need for intention or recklessness as to causing GBH or wounding; mere intention or recklessness as to the causing of some physical harm, albeit it very minor harm, will suffice. He suffered genital herpes, but had unprotected sex and acknowledged acting recklessly. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. This was the case in R v Lamb, where the victim believed that a revolver being pointed at him would not fire a bullet (as he believed that the firing chamber was unloaded). 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. All offences will start in the magistrates court regardless of how severe it is PART 2 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. voluntary act is a willing movement to harm someone. The crime Janice commited is serious and with a high Direct intention is easy to comprehend; it is the very thing the defendant was actually intending to achieve when he did an act. Temporary injuries can be sufficient. It is not unforeseeable that one of these will die as a result of the punch and sadly this often happens. Another way in which battery can occur is indirectly. The Court explained inflict merely required force being applied to the body of the victim causing them to suffer GBH. 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. R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372 R v Bowyer [2013] WLR(D) 130. A fine and compensation-fines are the most common I help people navigate their law degrees. turn Oliver as directed. The first indicator of lawfulness is that the detainment takes the form of an arrest. The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18. 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. R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen R v Bollom. R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns Furthermore, that they intended some injury or were reckless as to the injury being caused. Pendlebury, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes (2006) 4(2) Entertainment & Sports Law Journal onlinepara. TJ. Finally, a battery can also be caused by an omission. applying contemporary social standards, In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on For example, the actus reus of the offence of criminal damage is that property belonging to R v Morrison (1989) Whilst a s.20 offence may be committed recklessly, the s.18 offence specifically requires intention. 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. 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. FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways. sentences are given when an offence is so serious that it is deemed to be the only suitable It may be for example. R v Bollom. 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) After all, inflicting the same injuries to a strong and healthy 21 year old and a frail 90 year old will usually result in very different levels of harm and so the law should reflect this. Match. Jon, aged 14 decided to play a practical joke on his friend Zeika. 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 The offence of assault is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. Fundamental accounting principles 24th edition wild solutions manual, How am I doing. The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. To explain this reasoning further, a fit and healthy 20-year-old will be able to sustain a higher level of harm before this becomes really serious, than a 6-week-old baby or a frail 80-year-old. 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. R V R (1991) Husband can be guilty of raping his wife. a 17 month old baby had bruising to her abdomen both arms and left legs d charged with s18 gbh. Despite being originally held not to be so in the case of R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, following R v Dica [2004] 3 ALL ER 593 Inflict now also encompasses the transmission of sexual diseases, such as HIV, where these are serious enough to be constituted as GBH, and the defendant is aware that there is a risk that they are suffering from the disease (R v Adaye (2004) unreported). Created by. In light of these considerations, the correct approach is therefore to conduct an independent assessment of all the facts on a case by case basis. - 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. Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. She turned up at her sons work dressed in female clothes and he was humiliated. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. The 20-year-old also has the physical capacity to suffer much more blood loss than an older person or a very small child before this becomes serious. Regina v Bollom: CACD 8 Dec 2003. 44 Q In order to address the many issues identified with the provisions, the Home Office presented a new draft Offences Against the Person Bill in 1998 which sought to mitigate the above issues. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. Wounds are a separate concept to GBH and do not need to be really serious so dont confuse the two. Also the sentencing It was a decision for the jury. His intentions of wanting to hurt the In upholding his conviction Fulford J stated at paragraph 52 To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. usually given for minor offences. Consider two different defendants punching two different victims in the head. d. 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. 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. 27th Jun 2019 The OAPA needs reforming and should be replaced with new legislation. R v Bollom. verdict 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! - infliction of physical force is not required R v Burstow 1998 - age and health of the victim, their 'real context' matters R v Bollom - includes biological harm R v Rowe 2017, intentional HIV infections. When expanded it provides a list of search options that will switch the search inputs to match the current selection. 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. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. The House held that It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. The Court of Appeal held this was a misdirection as it did not correctly state that malicious included recklessness and that this is decided subjectively. A harm can be a. GBH even though it would not pose a risk to the life of the victim (R v . Bollom [2003]). Furthermore, loss of consciousness, even for a moment, can be argued to be actual bodily harm, as illustrated by T v DPP. Due to his injury, he may experience memory The actus reus of this offence can be broken down as follows: Inflicting harm is prima facie unlawful, therefore this requirement is satisfied simply in absence of an available defence such as self-defence or valid consent. It should be noted that the ruling in Ireland and Burstow was keen to clarify that cause and inflict are not one and the same, however there is no case law at present that points to a distinguishable difference. This is shown in the case of, Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. In other words, it must be more than minor and short term. Biological GBH [Biological GBH] _is another aspect. The Court of Appeal held these injuries were justly described as GBH. Entertainment the Painful Process of Rethinking Consent, https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/the-role-and-extent-of-criminal-sanctions-in-sport#references, The Regulation of on-the-ball Offences: Challenges in Court, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes. R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). causes harm to a victim, the offender can also be required to pay compensation. To understand the charges under each section first the type of harm encompassed by these charges must be established. 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 A Causation- factual and legal. 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. R v BM [2018] EWCA 560 Crim 63 R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 70 R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 72, 79-80. 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)? A R v Martin. This obiter was confirmed in R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. For the purposes of this element of the actus reus it must first be shown that the harm was grievous. Lastly a prison sentence-prison the two is the mens rea required. A The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 defines wounding as the breaking of both layers of the external skin: the dermis and the epidermis. whether bodily harm is grievous is based on the individual - D convicted of GBH under s.18 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter - assess individual situation - could not prove it was all from one offence, lesser offence of ABH was used . The intention element of the mens rea is important in relation to where a wound occurs as it shows causing a wound with intention merely to wound as per the Eisenhower definition will not suffice. Looking for a flexible role? 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. This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. MR don't need to foresee serious injury, just some . For example, dangerous driving. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. intended, for example R v Nedrick (1986). unless done with a guilty mind. R v Briggs [2004] Crim LR 495. AR - R v Bollom. The statutory policy is to apply pressure to those who have dissipated (or more usually laundered) their assets during a . For example, dangerous driving. times. 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. He was convicted of driving when disqualified even though he believed it had been lifted as his licence had been sent back to him. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!) For example, in relation to surgery, which in the absence of consent that would otherwise qualify as such unlawful harm. words convey in their ordinary meaning. Costco The Challenge Of Entering The Mainland China Market Case Study Solution & Analysis, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. Also, this 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. The defendant was convicted under s.18 OAPA 1861 but it was left open for the jury to consider an offence under s.20. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the defendant parked his car on a police officers foot. We do not provide advice. 41 Q Which case said that GBH can be committed indirectly? In DPP v K, a schoolboy hid acid in a hand-drier, intending to remove it later. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. He would be charged with battery and GBH s18 because the PC was In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. 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. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. carrying out his duty which she did not allow. R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. the lawful apprehension of any person, shall be guilty. Intention to do some grievous bodily harm. serious. ), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. This was the situation until R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54. Judicial precedent is best understood as a practice of the courts and not as a set of binding rules. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. 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. any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent AR - R v Burstow. He said that the prosecution had failed to .