Introduction
Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 defines the offences of malicious wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH). These offences are fundamental to English criminal law, requiring precise knowledge of their legal definitions, core principles, and statutory requirements. This article examines the essential elements of s.20 offences, including the actus reus and mens rea, and explores judicial interpretations that influence their application.
Understanding Actus Reus
The actus reus of s.20 necessitates that the defendant unlawfully wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another person.
Defining Wounding
A wound, in legal terms, involves a break in the continuity of both layers of the skin. This definition was clarified in JCC v Eisenhower [1984], where it was held that internal rupturing of blood vessels without skin breakage did not constitute a wound. Therefore, to establish wounding, there must be an external injury causing blood to flow from a break in the skin.
Grievous Bodily Harm Explained
Grievous bodily harm refers to "really serious harm," as articulated in DPP v Smith [1961]. GBH encompasses:
- Significant physical injuries, such as broken bones or substantial blood loss.
- Serious psychiatric injury, recognized in R v Burstow [1997] as GBH if the psychological harm is severe.
- The transmission of serious diseases, as established in R v Dica [2004], where knowingly infecting someone with HIV was deemed to inflict GBH.
Notably, the term "inflict" does not necessitate a direct application of force. In R v Burstow, it was determined that causing severe psychological harm through harassment could amount to inflicting GBH.
Understanding Mens Rea
The mens rea of s.20 requires that the defendant acted "maliciously," meaning they intended to cause some harm or were reckless as to whether harm might occur.
The Nature of Intent
Intent involves a deliberate decision to bring about a particular consequence. In the context of s.20, if the defendant intended to wound or cause some physical harm, even if not serious, this satisfies the mens rea.
Recklessness Explained
Recklessness is assessed subjectively, following the principle established in R v Cunningham [1957]. The prosecution must prove that:
- The defendant foresaw the risk of some harm occurring.
- The defendant proceeded unreasonably in the face of that risk.
This means the defendant must have been aware of the possibility of causing harm but went ahead with their actions regardless.
Distinctions between s.20 and s.18 Offences
Understanding the differences between s.20 and s.18 offences is key:
| Element | Section 20 | Section 18 |
|---|---|---|
| Actus Reus | Wounding or inflicting GBH | Wounding or causing GBH |
| Mens Rea | Intent or recklessness as to harm | Specific intent to cause serious harm or resist arrest |
| Intent Requirement | General intent to cause some harm | Specific intent to cause GBH |
The primary distinction lies in the mens rea. Section 18 requires a specific intent to cause serious harm, whereas s.20 can be satisfied with recklessness regarding some harm.
Causation in s.20 Offences
Causation is necessary in establishing liability for s.20 offences. The prosecution must prove that the defendant's actions caused the wound or GBH.
Factual and Legal Causation
- Factual Causation: This is determined by the "but for" test—whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.
- Legal Causation: The defendant's actions must be a significant contributing factor to the harm. It must be more than a minimal cause, as established in R v Cheshire [1991].
Intervening Acts
An intervening act can break the chain of causation if it is an independent event that is not reasonably foreseeable. However, per the "thin skull rule" from R v Blaue [1975], the defendant must take the victim as they find them, including any vulnerabilities.
Defences Applicable to s.20 Offences
Certain defences may negate liability for s.20 offences:
Self-Defence
A defendant may claim self-defence if they used reasonable force to protect themselves or others. The force used must be proportionate to the threat perceived, as per R v Owino [1995].
Consent
Consent can be a defence in cases involving contact sports or agreed-upon activities. However, in R v Brown [1993], it was held that one cannot consent to serious harm for non-medical purposes.
Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence to crimes of basic intent, such as s.20 offences. However, involuntary intoxication may negate the mens rea if the defendant lacked the necessary intent or recklessness.
Examination of Key Case Law
R v Dica [2004]
In R v Dica, the defendant knowingly infected two women with HIV through consensual sexual intercourse. The court held that transmitting a serious disease could constitute inflicting GBH under s.20, expanding the understanding of what actions can amount to GBH.
R v Savage [1991]
This case clarified that for s.20 offences, the defendant does not need to foresee the extent of the harm inflicted, only that some harm might occur. Here, the defendant threw beer over the victim, and the glass slipped, causing injury. She was convicted under s.20 due to recklessness.
R v Burstow [1997] and R v Ireland [1997]
These cases established that severe psychological harm can constitute GBH. Persistent harassment leading to psychiatric illness falls under the scope of s.20, recognizing the impact of non-physical actions on victims.
Practical Examples
Example 1: Recklessness in Sports
During a rugby match, Liam tackles Oliver with excessive force, outside the rules of the game, causing Oliver to suffer a fractured collarbone.
Analysis:
- Actus Reus: The injury qualifies as GBH due to its seriousness.
- Mens Rea: Liam was reckless as to causing some harm; he foresaw the risk involved in his actions but proceeded regardless.
Example 2: Disease Transmission
Emily is aware that she carries a serious contagious disease but engages in intimate contact without informing her partner, Daniel, who becomes infected.
Analysis:
- Actus Reus: The transmission of the disease constitutes GBH.
- Mens Rea: Emily was reckless as she knew of the risk of transmission and failed to take precautions or inform Daniel.
Example 3: Cyberbullying Leading to Psychological Harm
Jake conducts a sustained online harassment campaign against Mia, resulting in Mia developing severe depression and anxiety diagnosed by a psychiatrist.
Analysis:
- Actus Reus: The severe psychological injury amounts to GBH, as recognized in R v Burstow.
- Mens Rea: Jake intended to cause distress or was reckless as to the psychological harm his actions might cause.
Example 4: Transferred Malice
Alex throws a bottle intending to hit Ben but misses and strikes Cara, causing a deep laceration.
Analysis:
- Actus Reus: Wounding is established through Cara's injury.
- Mens Rea: Under the doctrine of transferred malice from R v Latimer [1886], Alex's intent to harm Ben transfers to Cara.
Conclusion
Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 encompasses the offences of malicious wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm, requiring a combination of specific actus reus and mens rea elements. The defendant must have unlawfully wounded or inflicted GBH, with intent or recklessness as to causing some harm. The legal interpretations of "wounding," "grievous bodily harm," and "maliciously" have been shaped by significant case law, expanding the scope of s.20 offences to include serious psychological harm and indirect actions. Distinguishing between s.20 and s.18 offences hinges on the level of intent, with s.18 requiring specific intent to cause serious harm. A thorough understanding of these principles, alongside key judicial decisions, is necessary for applying the law accurately to various factual scenarios.
