1. Malicious Wounding/ Inflicting GBH (s.20 OAPA) Key Cases
Case Facts Principle
JCC v The V was hit in the eye with a ‘Wound’ means a cut or break in the skin,
internal bleeding where there is no cut is not
shotgun pellet. This did not
Einsenhower penetrate the eye but did cause
sufficient. (There was no cut in this case, so
no wound).
(1983) severe bleeding under the surface.
Wood Even a broken bone is not considered
The victim’s collar bone was broken a wound, unless the skin is broken as
(1830) but the skin was intact. well.
DPP v It was held that grievous bodily harm
(You don’t need the facts for DPP v means ‘really serious harm’. The harm
Smith Smith). does not have to be life threatening.
(1961)
Saunders It was held that it was alright to
(You don’t need the facts for the direct a jury that there need be
(1985) Saunders case). ‘serious harm’ not including the word
‘really’.
Bollom A 17 month old child had bruising to her
abdomen, arms and legs. D was convicted of
It was held that the severity of the
injuries should be assessed according
(2004) causing GBH. Bruising of this severity
to the V’s age and health.
would be less serious on an adult in full
health.
D carried out an 8 month campaign against
Burstow an ex-girlfriend, including silent and abusive
Serious psychiatric injury can be GBH
AND ‘inflict’ does not require a
(1997) phone calls, hate mail and stalking. This
technical assault or battery.
caused V to suffer from serve depression.
D was convicted with s.20 OAPA.
Dica The D had unprotected sex with two Infecting Vs with HIV is causing
women without telling them he was grievous bodily harm.
(2004) HIV positive.
D shouted threats at his wife through a
Lewis closed door in a second floor flat and tried
‘Inflict’ can be interpreted widely.
Technical assault or battery is not
(1974) to break his way through the door. His wife
always needed. In this case threats
was so scared that she jumped through the
window breaking both her legs. D was could be considered as a technical
convicted of s.20. assault.
Cunningham The D tore a gas meter from the wall of an
empty house in order to steal the money in
‘Maliciously’ simply means an intention to do
the particular kind of harm that was done, or
(1957) it. It leak gas and a woman next door was recklessness as to whether such harm should
affected. D had not intended the harm nor occur or not.
had he been subjectively reckless.
D injured his 3 month old child when he In this case H of L confirmed that the
Parmenter threw him in the air and caught him. His Cunningham meaning of recklessness applies
(1991) s.20 conviction was substituted for a s.47 to all offences in which the statutory
as he did not realise the risk of harm to the definition uses the word ‘maliciously’.
child.