Crime C – s.18 and s.20 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) VI
When
assessing whether the injuries amounted to GBH or otherwise the jury is
entitled to take into account the characteristics peculiar to the victim
including his or her age. In R v Bollom (2004) the defendant inflicted
injuries on his partner’s seventeen-month old baby and while the injuries would
not have constituted grievous bodily harm (GBH) if inflicted on an adult, the
same injuries when inflicted on a child could constitute grievous bodily harm
(GBH). The jury took into account of the fact that the victim was a baby and
convicted the defendant for causing grievous bodily harm (GBH).
The
defendant appealed on the grounds that when deciding whether any injury
(injuries) constituted grievous bodily harm (GBH), the jury should not take
into account the age and characteristics of the victim.
The
court of appeal held that when deciding whether an injury (injuries) amount to
grievous bodily harm (GBH) the jury is entitled to take in account the victim’s
age, sensitivities, and characteristics. However, because not all the injuries
that were sustained by the victim were a result of the defendant’s actions the
conviction was substituted for a S.47 conviction or actual bodily harm (ABH).
It is possible to substitute a S.20 conviction with a S.47 conviction see R v
Savage (1991) and R v Parmenter (1991). The test to determine whether a
defendant is guilty of a s.47 offence is objective.
It
also worth keeping in mind s.58 (4) of the Childrens Act 2004 - For the
purposes of subsection (3) “actual bodily harm” has the same meaning as it has
for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861”.
s.58
(3) of the act reads as follows: -
“Battery
of a child causing actual bodily harm to the child cannot be justified in any
civil proceedings on the grounds that it constituted reasonable punishment”.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment