GBH

• GBH is defined in

  Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18 and s.20
• To Prove GBH it must be shown that...

  • The defendant wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm.
  • That they intended some injury or were reckless as to the injury being caused.
• A “wound” is classified as a cut or break in the continuity of the skin. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someone’s cheek. - JJC v Eisenhower
• JJC v Eisenhower

  the victim was hit in the eye by a shotgun pellet, but because the bleeding only occurred beneath the surface, it was held not to amount to a wound. There must be a cut to the whole of the skin so that the skin is no longer intact.
• The word “grievous” is taken to mean “serious”. - DPP v Smith
• DPP v Smith


  The level of injury was said to be “really serious harm”. This was changed in R v Saunders, where the word “really” was removed from the definition so as to clarify the nature of the offence.
• The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one.
• In R v Bollom, it was also decided that the age and health of the victim should play a part in assessing the severity of the injuries caused. as nflicting the same injuries to a strong and healthy 21 year old and a frail 90 year old will usually result in very different levels of harm and so the law should reflect this.
• As with the law on ABH, the level of harm for GBH can include “serious” psychiatric injury.  - R v Burstow
• R v Burstow


  The victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant.
• Biological GBH

  • R v Dica, where the defendant caused the victim to become infected with the HIV virus by having unprotected sex without informing them that he was HIV-positive.
• Section 20


  Requires the defendant was subjectively reckless as to some harm occurring as a result of the act or omission.
• Section 18


  The defendant must have intended to do some grievous bodily harm, an intention to wound is not enough. - R v Taylor
• R v Taylor


  where it was unclear whether the defendant had intended serious harm by their actions. The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 rather than section 18