Section 18- Wounding with intent

• D may be liable under Section 18 of the Offences Against the person act 1861 for unlawfully and maliciously wounding with intent to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest.
• OR Unlawfully and maliciously CAUSING grievous bodily harm with intent to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent arrest.
• The Actus Reus is: an act or omission causing a wound OR an act or omission causing GBH. (if it's an omission say an omission is a failure to act where there is a duty to do so and refer to one of contractual/PITTWOOD, voluntary care/Stone and DOBINSON, dangerous situation/MILLER)
• Here, V's injuries constitute a wound, defined in EISENHOWER as breaking layers if the skin as he/she suffered (e.g. deep cuts, stab wounds, bleeding)
• OR Here, V's injuries constitute GBH defined as really serious (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS) as she suffered (e.g. broken limbs, broken jaw, fractured skull, permanent disability/loss of sense, serious infection- DICA, serious psychiatric harm- BURSTOW, IRELAND)
• Factual causation is satisfied as "but for" Ds actions, the wound (or GBH) would not have occured (PAGETT, WHITE, HUGHES) and legal causation is satisfied as D was the operating and substantial cause of the wound (OR GBH) as it was a significant, more than minimal contribution (SMITH)
• D hitting V was probably the legal cause of the injury as it was the operating and substantial cause as it was the significant, more than minimal cause (SMITH, PAGETT)
• IF RELEVANT: V (e.g. falling over and suffering bruising) is a novus actus interveniens but will not break the chain of causation as it was reasonably forseeable (PAGETT: "act of a third party or ROBERTS, CORBETT, KENNEDY: "victim's own act"- choose most appropriate) and legal causation is satisfied
• IF RELEVANT: A novus actus interveniens (intervening act) can break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably forseeable-

  1. CORBETT, ROBERTS, KENNEDY concerned the victim's own act
  2. PAGETT concerned a third party act
  3. Medical negligence is an intervening act that usually will not break the chain of causation, (CHESHIRE), unless it is considered very serious ("palpably wrong"- JORDAN)
  4. If V has a hidden weakness, then D is expected to 'take his victim as he finds them, under the thin skull rule (BLAUE)
• As set out in BELFON and TAYLOR, the mens rea is direct intention ONLY as to causing grevious bodily harm or resisting or preventing arrest
• D had direct intention as she decided to bring about the particular consequence (MOHAN) of really serious (SMITH) or serious harm (SAUNDERS) when she (e.g. attacked Y with a weapon)]
• IF RELEVANT: If there is intention to resist/prevent arrest, D needs only to be subjectively reckless as to the harm (MORRISON)
• IF RELEVANT: "The transferred malice principle applies, where a crime intended for one person falls on another by accident, as in (LATIMER, MITCHELL), so D will still be liable, as the mens rea is transferred from X to V"
• Note: GNAGO and / or PEMBILTON may apply
• TO CONCLUDE, D is likely to be liable as the AR and MR are present