Unlawful Wounding/Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm
From CrimeLine from Andrew Keogh
- Grievous bodily harm
- Sentencing Guidelines Council Assault and other offences against the person (Grievous Bodily Harm etc.)
- Offences Against The Person: Incorporating Charging Standard
- Wounding/Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent
- Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
- Common assault
- Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Section 20 Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude.
Dica, R. v (05 May 2004)
Dica, R. v [2004] EWCA Crim 1103 (05 May 2004) This was an appeal against his conviction of two offences of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The effect of this judgment in relation to s.20 is to remove some of the outdated restrictions against the successful prosecution of those who, knowing that they are suffering HIV or some other serious sexual disease, recklessly transmit it through consensual sexual intercourse, and inflict grievous bodily harm on a person from whom the risk is concealed and who is not consenting to it. In this context, R v Clarence (1889) 22 QB 23 has no continuing relevance. Moreover, to the extent that Clarence suggested that consensual sexual intercourse of itself was to be regarded as consent to the risk of consequent disease, again, it is no longer authoritative. If however, the victim consents to the risk, this continues to provide a defence under s.20. Although the two are inevitably linked, the ultimate question is not knowledge, but consent. We shall confine ourselves to reflecting that unless you are prepared to take whatever risk of sexually transmitted infection there may be, it is unlikely that you would consent to a risk of major consequent illness if you were ignorant of it. That said, in every case where these issues arise, the question whether the defendant was or was not reckless, and whether the victim did or did not consent to the risk of a sexually transmitted disease is one of fact, and case specific.
The appeal raises issues of considerable legal and general public interest about the circumstances in which a defendant may be found guilty of a criminal offence as a result of infecting another person with a sexually transmitted disease. Held: the trial judge should not have withdrawn the issue of consent from the jury, the appeal allowed.
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 Grievous bodily harm
VISCOUNT KILMUIR LC:
- "I can find no warrant for giving the words ‘grievous bodily harm’ a meaning other than that which the words convey in their ordinary and natural meaning. ‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation, and ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious.’ In this connection your Lordships were referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of Rex v. Miller. In giving the judgment of the court, Martin J … said:
- ‘[T]here does not appear to be any justification for treating the expression ‘grievous bodily harm’ … as bearing any other than their ordinary and natural meaning.’
- In my opinion, the view of the law thus expressed by Martin J. is correct …"
Unlawful wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm is contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.
The offence is committed when a person unlawfully and maliciously, either:
- wounds another person; or
- inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another person.
It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Summarily, the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
Wounding means the breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin, or the inner skin within the cheek or lip. It does not include the rupturing of internal blood vessels. (Archbold 19-212).
The definition of wounding may encompass injuries that are relatively minor in nature, for example a small cut or laceration. An assault resulting in such minor injuries should more appropriately be charged contrary to section 47. An offence contrary to section 20 should be reserved for those wounds considered to be serious (thus equating the offence with the infliction of grievous or serious, bodily harm under the other part of the section).
Grievous bodily harm means serious bodily harm. (Archbold 19-206). It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to serious harm include:
- injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;
- injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
- compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
- injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
- injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
- psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.
In accordance with the recommendation in (R v McCready (1978) 1 WLR 1376), if there is any reliable evidence that a sufficiently serious wound has been inflicted, then the charge under section 20 should be of unlawful wounding, rather than of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Where both a wound and grievous bodily harm have been inflicted, discretion should be used in choosing which part of section 20 more appropriately reflects the true nature of the offence.
The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C 699).
This offence is capable of being racially/religiously aggravated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. (Refer to Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime, elsewhere in this guidance). See: CPS Charging Standards
Brady, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 2413 (19 October 2006)
King, R. v (09 September 2009)
King, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1990 (09 September 2009) The appellant appealed against a sentence of 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution on conviction of one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Held: the sentence of 18 months was wrong in principle because it was not in accordance with the SGC guidelines. A term of 12 months' detention, although higher than the recommended maximum term for category 4, is justified on the facts of the case by reason of the aggravating factors as noted by the court. A term of 12 months was in accordance with the general approach of the SGC guidelines on assault.
Mitchell, R. v (08 September 2009)
Mitchell, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1899 (08 September 2009) The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He appealed against the sentence 30 months' imprisonment on the ground that the judge took the wrong starting point in the definitive guideline published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Held: that ground of appeal had merit. The sentence of 30 months' imprisonment quashed and a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment substituted.
Akman, R. v (15 May 2009)
Akman, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1087 (15 May 2009) The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding. Inter alia he was odered to pay £3,000 in compensation to the victim. Held: We have seen the photographs. We have considered this against the normal amount that one would expect to see in a civil case in damages for a wound or a scar of this nature. We accept the submission of the appellant that the proper figure is one for £1,000. To that extent, again, we quash the sentence and substitute the figure of £1,000. All other matters set out in the sentence stand as before.
Schmidt v R. (29 April 2009)
Schmidt v R . [2009] EWCA Crim 838 (29 April 2009) The appellant was convicted on two counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Held: in the light of the way this case was summed up the conviction was not safe and therefore could not stand. The appeal against conviction allowed.
Shannon, R. v (10 September 2008)
Shannon, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 2131 (10 September 2008) The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He appealed against sentence. The appellant submitted that 12 months imprisonment was manifestly excessive because it failed to take proper account of the definitive guideline and the mitigating factors. He submitted that this was not a "particularly grave injury". He relied on the decision in R v Olawo [2008] EWCA Crim. 528 in support of the proposition that particularly grave injury means grave or serious by the standards of offences of grievous bodily harm generally. In those circumstances he submitted this case falls into the lowest category of "other unpremeditated assault where no weapon was used" for which the starting point is 24 weeks' custody. The court accepted that by the standards of offences of grievous bodily harm generally the injury caused in this case was not particularly grave, but it did not follows that the case falls into the lowest category in the guidelines. This was a case where there was an element of premeditation, Accordingly this case fell into that category in the guideline which is "premeditated assault where no weapon has been used" for which the starting point is 36 weeks' custody and the sentencing range is 24 weeks to 18 months' custody. The appropriate starting point had this been a full trial would have been a sentence of around 12 months' imprisonment. Given that this appellant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity the appropriate sentence was one of eight months' imprisonment and to that extent this appeal was allowed.
Olawo v R. (19 March 2008)
Olawo v R. [2008] EWCA Crim 528 (19 March 2008) The appellant appealed against a sentence of 20 months imprisonment imposed on conviction on a single count of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Held: the sentence of 20 months, imposed by was manifestly excessive and reduced to a period of immediate imprisonment of twelve months.
Where would we be without bailii please DONATE to BAILII
CrimeLine is sponsored by Keogh Solicitors. CrimeLine is published by CrimeLine Training Limited (Company No. 06748394)
