Section 20 OAPA

Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous

bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or
instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof
shall be liable.
Actus Reus= is maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH to another person with
or without a weapon, Mens Rea= Malicious intention OR Recklessness
(Foresight of some harm).
Important points
1. If sexually transmittable diseases in absence of any intent to cause
GBH is going to come under sec 20.
2. Clinical depression it is caused by defendant will come under the sec
20.
3. According to case of Wilson 1984 for infliction you do not need an
assault, Wilson case has also abolished the requirement of direct
contact with the victim. However it did mention that harm was
sustained as result of physical blow.
4. In case of halliday it was held that sec 20 is satisfied despite of the fact
there was no assault and direct application of force by defendant on
victim.
5. The definition of infliction was taken from the case of sallisbury1976:
infliction does not need an assault; for infliction it is necessary to show
that harm was sustained as result of victim receiving a blow or other
application of force to the body, which may or may be as a result of
direct force being applied by defendant on the victim.
6. Even when there is no direct force applied to victim, infliction will still
be satisfied in case of psychiatric injuries like acute clinical depression
and any other recognized medical psychiatric injuries/ conditions.
7. An analogy is drawn from these cases that even little harm sustained
such as cuts and harms will satisfy section 20.
8. *in the case of berstowe it was held that GBH inludes and covers
serious psychiatric harms; GBH can be inflicted otherwise than by way
of blow or an application of force.
9. In berstowe HOL held that if psychiatric harm is ABH than serious
psychiatric harm can come under GBH.
 10. In berstowe HOL held that infliction does not require anything in
a way of force being directly applied to the victim, there is no significant
difference between causes and inflict.
11. According to case of martin defendant was held liable for all little
injuries sustained by people in theatre. Where he closed all the lights.
12. It is not necessary for Defendant to foresee the degree of harm
actually sustained. As long as they foresee some physical harm it will
come under sec 20.
13. According to the case of parameter subjective recklessness if not
satisfied than defendant will be acquitted.
Stokes 2003 The element of unlawful ness should not be
overlooked.

Horwood 2012 Absence of lawfull justification such as self-

defense or similar kind of defense.

Moriarty v Brooks In order to constitute a wound the continuity

of the whole skin must be broken

M’ Loughlin 1838 For there to be wound both the inner and

outer layer of the skin must be broken.

Wood 1830 Where victim was treated with such

violence that his collar bone was broken it
was held that there was no wound if skin
was intact.
Cunningham 1957 1. Accused has foreseen that particular
(Malice) kind of harm might be done.
2. Yet has go on to take the risk of it.
Marsh 2012 1. This offense can be commited
indirectly.
2. Defendant failed to call the dog off
and Victim was injured.
Brady 2006 Defendant acts with malice if he or she
foresees a risk.

Rushworth 1992 1. It is sufficient to prove that D foresaw

some harm might result.
2. Defendant took the risk unjustifiably.
3. To direct the jury that it must be
proved that defendant foresaw that it
would result in being far more
generous for the defendant.
4. Case left the foresight argument in
air.
Flack V Hunt 1979 If defendant foresaw that to frighten will
amount to psychiatric injury than this come
under wound.
Bollom 2004 The characteristics of victim maybe taken
into account what is GBH for child might not
be the same for an adult.
Gelder 1994 1. GBH occurs when there is serious
psychiatric harm.
2. GBH by obsene telephone calls.
Golding 2014 1. Bodily harm restricted to be
recognizable psychiatric injury.
2. Does not cover psychological
disturbance.
Smith 1885 Defendant decides to give GBH to X but
aims strikes victim, defendant is held
undersection 18.
Martin 1881 1. Defendant put out all the lights in
theatre.
2. All the injuries suffered by the people
in panic amounted to GBH.
CPS sec 20 CPS charging standard which recommends
sec 20 in cases of really serious harm such
as: injury resulting in permanent disability
limbs or bones, including a fractured skull;
compound fractures, broken cheek bone,
jaw, ribs, etc. substantial loss of blood,
usually necessitating a transfusion; injuries
resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
serious psychiatric injury.