Wounding Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant (state name) may be charged with wounding under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to the V (state name), when they (state what happened).
• A wound means a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin (at least the first two layers) and usually with blood loss. 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 (JCC v Eisenhower).
• As wounding is a result crime, causation must be proven. Factual causation will be established using the 'but for' test and the defendant's actions caused the wound (R v White).
• Legal causation must also be proven. The defendant will be de minimis (R v Kimsey) if they are more than a minimal cause and the operating and substantial cause (R v Smith) if they are the most to blame).
• Check for new intervening acts:

  1. Victim's own actions - reasonable, foreseeable, not daft = no break (Roberts)
  2. Victim's self-neglect - chooses not to go hospital, acts against hospital advice (Holland) or committing suicide (Wallace) = no break
  3. Actions of a 3rd party - reasonable, foreseeable (Pagett)
  4. Palpably wrong medical treatment - palpably wrong if it is so independent from the defendant's actions (no break = Smith) (break = Jordan)
  5. Thin skull rule - take victim as they find them (Blaue)
• Mens rea is the factor which determines if the defendant has committed a s.18 or s.20 offence.
• There are two different possible mens rea for wounding. Firstly, there is wounding under s.20 which can be satisfied when a defendant intentionally wants to cause some harm albeit not serious harm (Mohan) or recklessly sees the risk of causing some harm albeit not serious to the victim, but does it anyway (Cunningham). The defendant does not need to foresee serious injury, just some injury (R v Mowatt).
• Whilst the mens rea for s.18 wounding with intent is only satisfied if the defendant intentionally wants to cause really serious harm to the victim. The intent here can be direct or oblique however recklessness is not enough (R v Belfon).
• In conclusion, the defendant will/will not be found guilty of the triable-either-way offence of wounding under section 20 of OAPA 1861 and face a sentence of up to 5 years imprisonment.
• In conclusion, the defendant will/will not be found guilty of the indictable offence of wounding under section 18 of OAPA 1861, tried in the Crown Court, and face a sentence of up to life.