Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

GHB s.20 OAPA 1861 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The defendant is charged with wounding or grievous bodily harm
- - - - In DPP v Smith (1961) the House of Lords emphasised that GBH is a phrase that should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
        
        In Wilson (1984) the House of Lords stated that an assault is not necessary, the word ‘inflict’ simply required ‘force being violently applied to the body of the victim, so that he suffers GBH.
        
        So, it was thought that under s.20 it had to be direct application of force.
        
        In R v Martin (1881) the defendant was found liable under s.20, even though it is difficult to view the application of force as truly direct on these facts.
        
        In R v Ireland and Burstow (1997) recognised the word ‘inflict’ no longer implies the direct application of force. The judge stated that there was no reason for ‘inflict’ to be given a restrictive meaning.
        
        On appeal, the House of Lords stated that s.20 could be committed where no physical force had been applied
        
        1 more item...
    - - Wounding requires a breaking of the skin, so there will normally be bleeding though a graze will be sufficient.
        
        In Moriarty v Brooks (1834) it was held that both the dermis and epidermis must be broken.
        
        However, a cut of internal skin, such as in the cheek, is sufficient, but internal bleeding where there is no cut of the skin is not sufficient as seen in C v Eisenhower (1984)
- - - - In Cunningham it was stated that for the purpose of the 1861 Act ‘maliciously’ meant ‘intentionally or recklessly’.
        
        In R v Grimshaw (1984) the defendant was found guilty of an offence under s.20: they had inflicted GBH and they had the mens rea because they had at least foreseen that the victim might suffer some harm.