Wounding or causing GBH with intent

Question 1

What is the statutory offence of wounding or causing GBH with intent?

Answer 1

s.18 of the OAPA 1861

Question 2

Which offence is considered more serious, s.18 or s.20?

Answer 2

s.18

Question 3

How can it be seen that s.18 is more serious than s.20?

Answer 3

as s.18 has a higher maximum punishment

Question 4

What is the maximum imprisonment sentence under s.20 and s.18?

Answer 4

5 years

up to life

Question 5

What type of offence is s.20 and s.18?

Answer 5

s. 20=triable either way

s. 18=indictable (crown court)

Question 6

What is the statutory deffiniton of s.18 OAPA 1861?

Answer 6

Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would or cause any GBH to another person with intent to do GBH or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of any person

Question 7

In what two ways can the actus reus of s.18 be committed?

Answer 7

• wounding

- causing GBH

Question 8

The meanings of ‘wound’ and ‘GBH” are the same as what?

Answer 8

s.20 OAPA

Question 9

Why is the word “cause GBH” wide?

Answer 9

so that it is only necessary to prove that the defendant’s act were the substantial cause of the wound or GBH

Question 10

What type of intent is s.18?

Answer 10

specific intent offence

Question 11

For the mens rea of s.18, the defendant must be proved to have intended what two things?

Answer 11

• to do GBH

- resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person

Question 12

What intention is not enough for the mens rea as stated by Taylor?

Answer 12

to wound

Question 13

What happened in the case of Taylor?

Answer 13

Photographs made it impossible to tell how deep the wound was on V’s back. Medical evidence could not prove intention for causing serious injury. D was convicted of s.18 offence. COA quashed on the basis that an intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s.18.

Question 14

Photographs made it impossible to tell how deep the wound was on V’s back. Medical evidence could not prove intention for causing serious injury. D was convicted of s.18 offence. COA quashed on the basis that an intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s.18.
What case is this?

Answer 14

Taylor

Question 15

Although the word ‘maliciously’ appears in s.18, it has been held that this adds nothing to the mens rea of this section where what is intended?

Answer 15

GBH

Question 16

What 2 things are not enough for the mens rea of s.18?

Answer 16

intention to wound or

recklessness

Question 17

Why is recklessness not enough for the mens rea of s.18?

Answer 17

as it is a specific intent crime

Question 18

Intention has the same meaning as shown for the leading case in what section?

Answer 18

murder

Question 19

What case shows the actus reus for s.20, a direct or indirect act or omisson and no need to prove an assault?

Answer 19

martin 1881

Burstow 1998

Question 20

What is the mens rea for s.20 and the case which demonstrates this?

Answer 20

Intention or subjective recklessness as to cause some injury
Parmenter

Question 21

What is the consequence required for s.20 offence?

Answer 21

either a pound or GBH

Question 22

What is the offence for a s.20 offence?

Answer 22

maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH

Question 23

What is the offence for s.18?

Answer 23

wounding or causing GBH with intent

Question 24

What is the actus reus for a s.18 offence?

Answer 24

a direct or indirect act or omission which causes V injury

Question 25

What is the consequence required for a s.18 offence?

Answer 25

a wound of GBH

Question 26

What is the mens rea of a s.18 offence?

Answer 26

specific intention to cause GBH or specific intention to resist or prevent arrest plus recklessness as to cause injury

Question 27

As decided in Moloney, what is not intention?

Answer 27

foresight of consequences, it is only evidence from which intention can be inferred or found

Question 28

Following which 2 cases can intention not be found unless the harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant realised that this was so.

Answer 28

Nedrick and Woollin

Question 29

What did the cases of Nedrick and Woollin say intention could only be found?

Answer 29

when the harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and the defendant realised that this was so.

Question 30

When is the level of intention lower for the s.18 offence?

Answer 30

when the defendant is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention

Question 31

What type of intent must the prosecution prove if someone resisted or prevented arrest?

Answer 31

must prove specific intent

Question 32

Although the prosecution must prove that D had specific intent to resist or prevent arrest, so far as the injury they need only prove that ..?

Answer 32

he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a would or injury.

Question 33

Although the prosecution must prove that D had specific intent to resist or prevent arrest, so far as the injury they need only prove that he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a would or injury.
What case decided this?

Answer 33

Morrison

Question 34

What happened in the case of Morrison?

Answer 34

D dived through a window to resist arrest, dragging the police officer with him. Officer’s face was badly cut as a result. The jury was directed that an objective test of recklessness was enough to convict the defendant under section 18 OAPA, conviction quashed.