Grievous bodily harm
As grievous bodily harm (usually abbreviated as GBH , " serious injury ") refers to the criminal law of England and Wales an offense referred to in s. 18 and s. 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861).
Grievous bodily harm with intent
Actus reus
As a GBH , on the one hand, a statutory opence according to s. 18 of the OAPA 1861. The criminal liability does not result from common law , but from statute law , in this case the OAPA:
“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life. "
"Whoever unlawfully and fraudulently, by whatever means, may wound any person or cause serious harm to any person, or do so with the intention of frustrating or preventing the lawful arrest or imprisonment of any person, should be guilty of a crime and because of him stay in prison for life. "
The outdated and unclear language of the legal text causes many cases of doubt when interpreting the law. On the one hand, it is unclear when a “harm ” is to be described as “grievous” . In R v Metheram (1961) this was described as “really serious harm”. In R v Grundy (1977) this was further differentiated and explained that the totality of the victim's injuries must be considered. Fulford J confirmed this approach in R v Bollom (2003) and went on to explain that the decision should be based on the specific victim: for example, when a child is injured, different standards must apply than when an adult is injured.
It is also unclear what is meant by "wounding" . While in Moriarty v Brooks (1834): "If the skin is broken, and there was a bleeding, that is a wound" (per Lord Lyndhurst CB ), this is rejected today with reference to the high threat of punishment: In C (a minor) v Eisenhower (1984) the perpetrator hit the victim with an air rifle close to the eye, causing bleeding in the victim's eye. The Court of Appeal later overturned the conviction in the first instance , as mere internal bleeding did not constitute "wounding".
Another controversy culminated in the decision of the House of Lords in R v Mandair (1994) about the interpretation of the word "cause" , especially in contrast to "inflict" after s. 20 OAPA.
Mens rea
The mens rea requires proof of intent (~ intent ).
Inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding
Besides s. 18 OAPA 1861 there is still a less serious offense according to s. 20 OAPA 1861:
"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."
"Whoever unlawfully and fraudulently inflicts wounds or serious suffering on any other person, be it with or without some weapon or tool, should be guilty of an offense and be kept in prison."
literature
- Nicola Padfield: Criminal law . 7th edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-958204-4 , 9. Crimes of non-fatal violence.