+
Related Flashcards
Related Topics
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
|
What is the actus reus of Section 20?
|
A direct or indirect act or omission which causes the victim injury.
|
|
What is the mens rea of Section 20?
|
Specific intention to wound or to cause grievous bodily harm, or specific intention to prevent arrest plus recklessness as to causing injury.
|
|
The definition of Section 20 as stated in the OAPA 1861 includes the word 'wound', what suffices as a wound?
|
A cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin.
|
|
What can not suffice as a wound and why?
|
Internal bleeding as there is no cut of the skin.
|
|
What case illustrates that there is no wound if there is no cut?
|
JCC v Eisenhower.
|
|
What was held in DPP v Smith 1961?
|
That grievous bodily harm means 'really serious harm' but the harm does not have to be life-threatening.
|
|
In what case was it held that the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victim's health and age?
|
Bollom 2004
|
|
In what case was it held that serious psychiactric injury can be grievous bodily harm?
|
Burstow 1997
|
|
What consequences occur from the inclusion of the word 'inflict' in the definition of Section 20?
|
That 'inflict' does not require a technical assault, so it need only be shown that the defendant's actions have lead to the consequence of GBH and that now there is little or no difference in the actus reus of both section 20 and 18.
|
