s.20

• Definition of S.20 OAPA 1861


  'maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm'
• Actus reus of s.20


  • Wound OR infliction of Grievous bodily harm (GBH)
  • Causation
• Actus reus - Wound


  A 'wound' is a break in the continuity of the whole skin.

  Injuries that are just a graze/scratch will not be sufficient. These do not break through the whole skin and are just classed as ABH.

  A cut to internal skin (such as inside of your cheek) will count as a break in the continuity of the whole skin. However, internal bleeding with no breaks to the skin will not meet the criteria of a 'wound'
• Actus reus - Wound

  Internal bleeding does not meet the criteria of a break in the continuity of the skin.

  Case - JCC v Eisenhower.
• Actus reus - Wound


  A broken bone cannot be considered a 'wound' unless there is a break to the continuity of the skin as well.

  Case - R v Wood
• Actus reus - Grievous bodily harm (GBH)


  The other injury that can be caused under a s.20 is 'grievous bodily harm' (GBH). This has been defined as 'really serious harm'.

  Case - DPP v Smith
• Actus reus - Grievous Bodily harm (GBH)


  The grievous bodily harm caused does not have to be life-threatening.

  Case - R v Saunders
• Actus reus - Grievous bodily harm (GBH)


  When assessing whether 'serious harm' has been caused, we should also consider the victim's age and health status (a baby or older person)

  Case - R v Bollom
• Actus reus - Grievous Bodily harm (GBH)


  Where 'severe' psychiatric injury has occurred, then this potentially can be 'grievous bodily harm'

  Case - R v Burstow
• Actus reus - Grievous bodily harm (GBH)


  Passing an infection to another person can also be considered as 'grievous bodily harm'.

  Case - R v Dica
• Actus reus - Infliction of Grievous bodily harm (GBH)


  S.20 uses the word 'inflict'.

  This word has been interpreted widely.

  S.18 OAPA 1861 has the same actus reus as s.20, except it uses the word 'cause' instead of 'inflict'. The Courts have confirmed that these two words should be defined the same in this circumstance.

  Case - R v Burstow
• Actus reus - Causation


  • Factual causation - 'but for test' - R v Pagett
  • Legal Causation - 'more than a slight or trifling link' + 'more than minimal' - R v Kimsey + R v Hughes
  • Intervening act - Medical intervention + Victim's own act - R v Jordan + R v Roberts.
  • 'Thin skull rule' - the defendant must take the victim as they find them - unusual mental or physical state which makes them more injury prone cannot be used as an excuse - R v Blaue
• Mens rea - Maliciously (Intention or recklessness)


  S.20 describes the injuries being caused 'maliciously'. This just means that the person intended to do the harm that was done or was reckless as to whether such harm would occur.

  Case - R v Cunningham

  However, there is no need for the defendant to foresee a high level of serious injury, just some harm.

  Case - R v Parmenter
• Mens rea - Intention or Recklessness


  • Direct intention - this is where our defendant's main aim/purpose matches the desired consequence - R v Mohan
  • Oblique intention - This is where the defendant's main aim/purpose does not match the consequences. Therefore, we need to test whether 1) the consequence was virtually certain 2) whether the defendant foresaw that consequence - R v Woollin
  • Subjective recklessness - This is where the defendant knows there is a risk but chooses to take that risk anyway - R v Cunningham