Crime XXXXXXXXX – Battery II
In
R v Savage (1991) the defendant threw a glass of beer at her husband’s
ex-girlfriend, but the glass slipped from her hand and resulted in serious
injury to the victim. The defendant was tried and convicted for maliciously
causing grievous bodily harm to another under s.20 of the Offences Against the
Person Act (1861). The defendant appealed on the grounds that the word
malicious required intent and the defendant had not intended to cause the
victim the kind of harm or injury that resulted from her actions.
The
trial judge had failed to inform the jury that the test to convict under s20.
of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) was subjective and the jury had
to establish intent before it could convict under s20. However, given the facts
it was possible to convict under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act
(1861), if the defendant could foresee that some harm would result from her
actions albeit not the exact type of harm or injury that resulted. The matter
was referred to the House of Lords.
The
matter before the House of Lords was whether: -
1. It
was possible to substitute a s.20 conviction for a s.47 conviction when there
was no intent, or the subjective test was not satisfied? The answer is yes, and
it is possible to substitute a s.20 conviction with a s.47 conviction on a
count of causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) when the element of intent cannot
be satisfied.
2. A
conviction under s.47 simply required Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) i.e. minor
injuries, bruises, cuts and wounds and proof of an assault. Silence can
constitute an assault see R v Ireland (1997) and recognized psychiatric
illnesses are also classed or categorized as physical injury see R v Ireland
and Burstow (1997).
3. In
order to convict under.20 the defendant must foresee the consequences of his or
her actions regardless of the severity of the harm or injury that resulted.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment