Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent and malicious wounding with intent to resist or prevent arrest

Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as amended by the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides !hosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person or with the intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person" shall be g#ilty of an offence" and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

 $o# will note that each one of these offences consists of the same basic elements which m#st be proved% &hese are that the defendant either maliciously wounded or maliciously caused grievous bodily harm to another person. 'n addition" in order to convict under s.18, the prosec#tion m#st prove an #lterior intent on the part of the defendant" i%e% that they" by wo#nding or ca#sing grievo#s bodily harm" intended to do (cause) grievous bodily harm or intended to resist or prevent arrest. (ote that it is not sufficient merely to prove the basic elements of the offence) the ulterior intent on the part of the defendant must also be proved beyond reasonable do#bt%

Application Where the basic elements of the offence can be proved" it does not matter that the defendant did not achieve his objective of ca#sing grievo#s bodily harm or resisting or preventing arrest provided it can be proved that he or she intended to do so% &herefore" if " intending to cause grievous bodily harm to !" stabs ! b#t only manages to slightly wound him" would be guilty of the offence of maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to s%18 even though ! did not suffer grievous bodily harm. *imilarly" if , intending to resist being arrested by !" maliciously wounds or causes grievous bodily harm to !" will be guilty of the offence of maliciously wounding or maliciously causing grievous bodily harm with intent to resist arrest contrary to s.18 whether

or not ! is successful with the arrest% *ee + v ,regory -.//90 below%

ctus reus 1!o#nding1 and 1grievo#s bodily harm1 carry the same meanings as disc#ssed above in relation to the offence contrary to s."#. 'n Burstow, Lord *teyn e2plained that altho#gh the words cause and inflict were not synonymo#s" but 3in the conte$t of the ct of 18%1 there is no radical divergence between the meaning of the two words&% fter Ireland and Burstow and Dica, it is clear that inflict and cause mean the same thing &he 4o#se of Lords in 'andair 519967 1 has held that a judge is entitled to leave to a jury a conviction under s."# as an alternative to s.18 beca#se the term (causing( is wide enough to include (inflicting(.

ctus reus o 8oriarty v 9roo:s -18;<0 6 C=P 68< o >CC v ?isenhower 5198;7 ; All ?+ .;/ o @PP v *mith 519617 AC .9/ o *a#nders 519867 Crim L+ .;/ o >anA#a and Cho#dh#ry 519997 1 Cr App + 91 o Clarence 518887 o !ilson -198<0 o 9#rstow

1. Wound) continuity of the whole skin is broken. !o#nding B &his re*uires that the continuity of the whole s+in is bro+en% C (A Minor) v Eisenhower &he whole s+in must be severed" not just the mere cuticle or upper s+in. MLoughlin -18;80 o &h#s a scratch is not a wound. 't is not sufficient that internal bleeding is caused" tho#gh this may amo#nt to grievo#s or act#al bodily harm C (A Minor) v Eisenhower 5198<7 o (ote also that a mere br#ising of the s:in cannot be classified as a wo#nd%

 On the other hand" a cut on the inside of the mouth has been held to constitute a wound% Shadbolt -18;60 Waltham -18<90) a rupture of the lining of the urethra was classified as a wound &he difference is that the inside s:in of the lips and chee: is readily accessible from the o#tside) yo# can trace the contin#ity of the s:in with yo#r finger% *o r#pt#re of it did not only from the #pper side part

*iCe of the c#t is not the iss#e Altho#gh most wo#nding will be ca#sed by sharp instr#ments" the actual implement is of no concern) it is the rupturing of the s+in that is important and not the means by which it was achieved% ,or does it matter how big the cut is) a pin pric+ will suffice if it penetrates the whole s:in%

". -rievous bodily harm).serious bodily harm( ,rievo#s bodily harm B ,rievo#s bodily harm was defined by the 4o#se of Lords in DPP v S ith 519617 as (really serious bodily harm(% 't is not necessarily essential to insert the word (really( before 1serio#s bodily harm1% According to the cases of Saunders 519867 and !an"ua and Choudhur# 519997

3*erio#sDB ta:e the EDs characteristic into acco#nt 9rownB ta:e the EDs characteristic into acco#nt" what gbh for child might not for adult ,o need for injury permanent or life threatening On unconsciousness as grievous bodily harm see $ic%s 5.//77 /osterBdisc#ss level of #nconscio#sness and whether 3,lasgrow coma scoreD might assist in determine the severity

34armD is inA#ry 0han /oo+5199<7B harm is injury According to 1obhouse 23 4he word (harm( is a synonym for injury%

39odilyD e2tend beyond physical inA#ry 'n 0han /oo+" the defendant -CBF0 had s#spected that the complainant had stolen a ring then loc:ed him in an #pper room% &he 5" fearful that CBF might ret#rn" effected an escape through the window and sustained injuries when he fell. 4obho#se L> said &he first G#estion on the present appeal is whether the incl#sion of the word 1bodily1 in the phrase 1act#al bodily harm1 limits harm to harm to the s:in" flesh and bones of the victim% 2yns+ey 3 rejected this submission. 6n our judgment he was right to do so. &he body of the victim includes all parts of his body, including his organs, his nervous system and his brain.

 !odily injury therefore may include injury to any of those parts of his body responsible for his mental and other faculties.

9odily incl#ded recognisable psychiatric illness !hat type of psychological harm can amo#nt to act#al bodily harmH B included identifiable psy. but not mere that where the alleged harm is psychological in nature" it is not capable of amo#nting to act#al bodily harm unless e$pert evidence of an identifiable psychological injury is adduced) it does not include mere emotions s#ch as fear or distress or panic% ,either does it include states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition. 0han /oo+

emotion

6reland and !urstow B Included psy. as it coherent with scientific apprehension link with body harm with psy 'n 6reland and !urstow the 4o#se of Lords" approving the decision of 0han /oo+ confirmed that a recognisable psychiatric illness" whether of a neurotic, psychoneurotic or psychotic nature" may amount to bodily harm. !hether or not psychiatric illness amo#nts to (actual( or (grievous( bodily harm depends upon the seriousness of the illness. 2ord Steyn said &he proposition that the Eictorian legislator when enacting ss% 18" ./ and <7 of the 1861 Act" wo#ld not have had in mind psychiatric illness is no do#bt correct% Psychiatry was in its infancy in 1861% 9#t the s#bAective intention of the draftsman is immaterial%

 &he only relevant inG#iry is as to the sense of the words in the conte2t in which they are #sed 8oreover the 1861 Act is a stat#te of the 1always spea:ing1 type the statute must be interpreted in the light of the best current scientific appreciation of the lin: between the body and psychiatric inA#ry% For these reasons ' wo#ld" therefore" reAect the challenge to the correctness of + v Chan Foo:5199<7 'n my view the r#ling in that case was based on principled and cogent reasoning and it mar:ed a so#nd and essential clarification of the law% 6 would hold that (bodily harm( in ss.18, "# and 78 must be interpreted so as to include recognisable psychiatric illness

9haliwal : exclude emotion, no recognizable psy. the appellate court were not prepared to e$tend the definition of bodily harm to include emotional distress" psychological tra#ma or indeed any condition less than a Irecognisable psychiatric inA#ryJ% &here was a concern e2pressed that the present clear line should not be blurred" nor that any degree of elasticity sho#ld be introd#ced to it%

-!1 and Wounding ,94 will cover serio#s inA#ry witho#t wo#nding s#ch as bone bro:en !hile wo#nding will incl#ded something not ,94 s#ch as pinpric:

'ens rea *%18 and s%./ and s%<7B alternative charges &he defendant will either have intended to cause grievous bodily harm" in which case he is g#ilty of the s.18 offence" or he will merely have been rec+less as to causing grievous bodily harm and" where appropriate" will be g#ilty of the s."# offence% *ee 8andair 519967% (ote that these offences are often charged in the alternative -i%e% a defendant may be charged with offences contrary to ss%18" ./ and <7 of the Offences Against the Person Act 18610% &his is beca#se if the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable do#bt that the defendant" let1s say" intended grievous bodily harm -the mens rea for the most commonly charged of the s%18 offences0" they might be satisfied that he foresaw this conse*uence (rec+lessness).

 &herefore if he has been charged with alternative offences" the A#ry will have the option of ret#rning a conviction of the offence contrary to s."#. On the other hand" they might not be satisfied that the harm s#ffered by the victim amounted to a wounding or grievous bodily harm -see above for definitions0 b#t" if they are of the view that the harm suffered amounted to actual bodily harm and are satisfied that there was" in fact" an assa#lt or battery" it will be open to them to convict the defendant of the s.78 offence% ;f course, it is always open to them to ac*uit the defendant of all three offences<

@ h#rt themselves the wording of the two sections is that section "# states that the defendant must cause injury to .any other person&" while in section 18 the injury must be caused to .any person&% 6t could therefore be argued that if a defendant caused him or herself grievous bodily harm intentionally he or she committed an offence contrary to section 18) b#t if he or she did so rec+lessly there would be no offence contrary to section "#% 1owever, no reported prosecution has been bro#ght #nder section 18 on the basis that the defendant ca#sed him or herself grievo#s bodily harm%

?ven charged with s%18" alternatives sho#ld be left to A#ry as long as realistic available verdict and did not trivialised the offending ?ven where the defendant has only been charged with a s%18 offence" it is open to the judge to leave an alternative verdict to the jury% = v 1odson (9anielle) 5.//97 the appellant appealed against her conviction for wo#nding with intent to ca#se grievo#s bodily harm contrary to s%18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861% *he had failed with her defence of selfBdefence b#t argued that the judge should have left the alternative verdict of unlawful wounding contrary to s."# of the same ct to the jury. Co#nsel for the respondent arg#ed that neither the Crown nor the defence had r#n #nlawf#l wo#nding as part of its case and to have left it to the A#ry wo#ld have distracted the A#ry from the real iss#es in the case -i%e% selfBdefence0%

 4he 0ourt of ppeal allowed the appellant(s appeal% 't held that" altho#gh there was no a#tomatic reG#irement on the part of a A#dge to leave an alternative verdict to a A#ry where it wo#ld not properly reflect the facts of the case" if it was a realistically available verdict properly open to the jury and would not trivialise the offending conduct" then it should be left to the jury. 4his was particularly important where the defendant had been charged with an offence which re*uired proof of specific intent and the alternative verdict did not.

8alicio#s and intended to ca#se ,94 ('aliciously( bears the meaning disc#ssed above in relation to the offence contrary to s%./% !e saw in 0unningham that this means the prosec#tion m#st prove that the acc#sed intended to bring about the prohibited result or was rec+less as to so doing% +emember (maliciously( should be given its proper meaning (i.e. 0unningham)type rec+lessness). 6f 9 already has the intend to cause -!1 then it is unnecessary to prove 9 .maliciously& to wound and cause -!1 9#t if 9 only intend to resist from detain" then has to prove than 9 maliciously to wound and cause -!1 If cannot be that D totally unaware of his act will wound or cause GB , in fact it happen just because resist from detain, then it will become objecti!e pro!en criminal

'f intent to resist arrest then have to at least malicio#sly wo#nd and ca#se ,94 'erely wounding or causing -!1 with intent to resist or prevent arrest sho#ld not be sufficient to convict under s.18. &he wounding or grievous bodily harm should be proved to have been effected (maliciously( -i%e% the prosec#tion m#st prove that the defendant foresaw a ris+ of harm0%

'orrison 519897 Bonly intend to resist arrest no enough a police officer entered a house to arrest the defendant% &he defendant" intending to resist arrest" ran to the window to try to escape" at which point the police officer too: hold of the defendant1s clothes to try to stop him% &he defendant A#mped thro#gh the window thereby dragging the police officer to the window and she s#ffered c#ts to her face% 4he defendant was convicted of the s.18 offence of maliciously wounding with intent to resist arrest and appealed to the Co#rt of Appeal% 4he 0ourt of conviction. ppeal *uashed his

6t held that (maliciously( bears the subjective meaning of rec+lessness therefore the A#ry

should have been directed to consider whether the defendant foresaw a ris+ of some harm.

'ntend to ca#se ,94 not necessary E need to be ca#se ,94 in fact = v -regory ('atthew) 5.//97 the appellant appealed against his conviction for wo#nding with intent to ca#se grievo#s bodily harm contrary to s%18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861% One of the gro#nds of his appeal was that the trial A#dge had not directed the A#ry on intention in accordance with the specimen directions o#tlined by the >#dicial *t#dies 9oard and in accordance with the case of + v P#rcell 519867 8; Cr App + <6% -(ote that there is a lin: on the criminal law section of the EL? to the website of the >#dicial *t#dies 9oard where yo# can find the specimen directions0% 't was arg#ed that the A#ry sho#ld have been directed that 1yo# m#st feel s#re that the defendant intended to ca#se serio#s bodily harm to the victim) yo# can only decide what his intention was by considering all the relevant circ#mstances and in partic#lar what he did and what he said abo#t it1%

 't was s#bmitted by the Co#nsel for the appellant that the trial A#dge sho#ld have emphasised the fact that the A#ry had to be s#re on intent% !hat the trial A#dge had said was >4?o find him guilty on a more serio#s co#nt s.18 of ; @ 18%1 it m#st be proved7 that he actually intended to cause grievous bodily harm. ,rievo#s bodily harm means some really serio#s inA#ry) a bro:en arm for e2ample% 6t is not that the injury in the present case constituted grievous bodily harm. 1e is not charged with causing grievous bodily harm% 4he *uestion is even though he did not actually cause grievous bodily harm, did he nevertheless positively intend to cause grievous bodily harm when the attac+ too+ place.

 &he Co#rt of Appeal held that the >*9 specimen directions were a framewor: to provide assistance and g#idance and did not need to be followed slavishly% &he important iss#e was that the jury was given a direction which was accurate, helpful and correctly reflected the law% &he essential ingredients were present and it co#ld not amo#nt to a misdirection% 4he appeal was dismissed.

"ommentary (ote this case also ill#strates something that st#dents often miss B that" in order to be convicted of a s.18 offence, the victim does not need to actually suffer grievous bodily harm. 6t is the intention to cause such harm which is important and" if the other ingredients of the offence are also proved" a defendant can be found guilty. Of co#rse" in most cases bro#ght #nder this section" the victim will have s#ffered grievo#s bodily harm%

'ntention to ca#se ,94B direct and obliG#e (6ntention(, and intention alone, is necessary with respect to the ulterior intent -see !elfon 5197670% K *o" where appropriate" the prosec#tion m#st prove either -a0 that it was the defendant(s purpose to cause grievous bodily harm or" if it was not his purpose" -b0 that he +new that grievous bodily harm was a virtually certain conse*uence of his act% 6n case (b) s#ch :nowledge is evidence from which the jury may infer that he had the re*uisite intent% !ryson 519867%

+esist to be arrested from lawf#l arrest (ote that" in respect of those partic#lar offences contrary to s%18" intent to resist or prevent arrest is negatived if the attempted arrest is unlawful -Wal+er 5196<70% 9#t if the apprehension is lawful it was held in !entley -186/0 that it is no defence that the defendant believed it to be unlawful% *ee also Lee 5.///7 All ?+ -@0 1.16) 4ewitt v @PP 5.//.7 All ?+ -@0 69%

046564A Su+hi shoo+ his fist in !ertie(s face, threatening to brea+ his nose. Assa#lt &he prosec#tion wo#ld have to prove that *#:hi intentionally or rec:lessly ca#sed 9ertie to apprehend the infliction of immediate #nlawf#l violence

Sandra hit /atima in the face causing /atima to suffer a blac+ eye. !attery &he prosec#tion wo#ld have to prove that *andra intentionally or rec:lessly inflicted #nlawf#l violence on Fatima% 't is #nli:ely that a blac: eye wo#ld be deemed to amo#nt to act#al bodily harm which wo#ld be necessary for a charge of assa#lt occasioning act#al bodily harm contrary to s%<7" altho#gh this is a G#estion of fact% 'f the br#ising was e2tensive" however" the prosec#tion might consider charging *andra #nder s%<7% According to the g#idance to prosec#te" minor br#ising only amo#nt to battery" altho#gh it is only a g#idance b#t not law

3ames and Buljeet decided, for fun, to have an arm wrestling competition to see who was the strongest. Cnfortunately, as Buljeet(s arm was wrestled to the table the force bro+e his wrist and dislocated his shoulder. ssault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.78 &he prosec#tion wo#ld need to prove the elements of assa#lt andLor battery" i%e% the act#s re#s and mens rea B see -a0 and -b0 above% 't wo#ld then need to be demonstrated that the injuries did amount to actual bodily harm" i%e% that they interfered with the victim(s health and comfort and that they were more than transient or trifling% Finally" it wo#ld need to be proved that they were caused by the (common) assault. $o# wo#ld also need to consider the defence of consent.

 's >ames li:ely to be s#ccessf#l with this defenceH 4ow is policy li:ely to operate hereH !as act#al bodily harm li:ely or intendedH charge under s."# is unli+ely as these injuries appear to be fairly minor" altho#gh they may be on the bo#ndary between act#al and grievo#s bodily harm" especially if the brea+ to the wrist was a compound fracture%

'f >ames was charged #nder s%./ it wo#ld need to be proved that he (maliciously( inflicted grievous bodily harm. !hat does 1malicio#sly1 meanH !hat is 1grievo#s bodily harm1H 's he li:ely to be s#ccessf#l with the defence of consent to a charge #nder s%./ in these circ#mstancesH Cnless the injuries amounted to -!1 and unless there was evidence that 3ames intended -!1, there wo#ld be no charge under s.18.

3ane stabbed Susie, intending to cause her serious injury. Susie, however, sustained only a slight wound. 'aliciously wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s.18 't wo#ld need to be proved that >ane wo#nded *#sie% wound is a brea+ in the contin#ity of the whole s:in -?isenhower0%

&he facts of the G#estion ma:e it clear that *#sie was wo#nded% 't m#st also be proved that the wounding was (malicious(" i%e% that >ane intended or was rec:less as to the wo#nding% Again the facts of the G#estion indicate that it was intentional% For this offence it m#st also be proved that 3ane intended by the

wounding to cause grievous bodily harm to Susie. &he facts of the G#estion indicate clearly that she did so intend. 6t does not matter that Susie did not suffer grievous bodily harm%

=oger, a police officer, tried to effect a lawful arrest on Simon. Simon hit =oger intending only to cause slight harm to help him get away. =oger suffered a fractured s+ull. 'aliciously causing grievous bodily harm with intent to resist arrest contrary to s.18 ,rievo#s bodily harm is serio#s harm -*mithL*a#nders0% fractured s+ull is li+ely to be deemed to be grievous bodily harm.

&he prosec#tion wo#ld need to prove that *imon 1malicio#sly1 ca#sed the ,94" i%e% that he intended it or was rec:less as to ca#sing it% &he G#estion ma:es it clear that he did not intend to ca#se serio#s harm% Was he rec+lessD 9id he foresee a ris+ of some harmD

 4he facts of the *uestion indicate that he did. 't wo#ld seem that the basic offence is established% 4he *uestion also ma+es it clear that his ulterior intention was to resist arrest% 't is therefore li:ely that he wo#ld be convicted of the offence

Summary A range of simple and aggravated nonBfatal offences against the person has now been considered% $o# sho#ld be aware of the differences between these offences and :now which are the appropriate ones to consider when faced with a problem G#estion% &he offences contrary to s%18 are the most serio#s and carry a ma2im#m penalty of life imprisonment% &hey reG#ire proof of an #lterior intent" either to ca#se grievo#s bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest B depending #pon which offence is charged% &he offence contrary to s%./ carries a ma2im#m penalty of five years1 imprisonment% +ec:lessness is s#fficient mens rea for this offence% &he mens rea reG#irement for the offence contrary to s%<7" for which

the ma2im#m penalty is also five years1 imprisonment" is the mens rea for the assa#lt or battery which forms the basis of this offence%