'Rita is Henry’s 14-year-old sister who is in love with Fred.

Rita asks Fred to carve the letter ‘F’

on to her arm using a penknife. Fred does not want to do this but reluctantly agrees when
Rita tells Fred that she will end the relationship if he does not. The wound is not serious,
although it does require three stitches. Henry is angry with Fred and they decide to settle
their differences by having a fight. Fred punches Henry, knocking him over and causing him to
fracture his wrist. As Fred is making his way home, a beggar, Toni, who is carrying a baby in
her arms, approaches him and asks him for money. Fred, who is still angry after the fight,
raises his hand in a threatening way. In trying to protect herself and the baby, Toni
accidentally drops the baby which bruises it slightly. The police are called. PC Dibble tries to
arrest Fred but Fred pushes PC Dibble in an attempt to get away, causing PC Dibble to fall to
the ground suffering serious cuts to his arm. Discuss the possible criminal liability of Fred.'
ANS. The abovementioned scenario shows that Fred is in trouble as multiple liabilities of Fred are arising
which revolve around non-fatal offences. In this answer, one would discuss Fred’s liabilities under s.18,
s.20 and s.47 of OAPA. In the issue concerning Rita, one would establish that Fred is liable under s.20,
which is malicious wounding. Moreover, in the case of Henry, one would establish that Fred committed
battery and that the battery committed resulted in causing Henry GBH, thus arising another liability
under s.20. In the third scenario, Fred’s liability would revolve around assault and ABH (offence under
s.47 of OAPA). And lastly, this answer would establish whether Fred’s act of resisting a lawful arrest in
which he caused serious cuts to PC Dibble’s arm amount to the fulfillment of the actus-reus and
mensrea of s.18 or not.

Starting off with the issue of Rita. Rita is a 14-year-old, in other words she is a minor. Whatever she
asked Fred to do, namely carving the letter ‘F’ on her arm using a penknife, is a form of tattooing or
body alteration. As a general rule, if one is consenting to get a tattoo or such type of body alteration, no
liability would arise as was seen in R v Wilson. However, the fact that Rita is a minor and that she may
not fully understand what she is consenting for, vitiates her consent. This was seeming in Burrell v
Harmer where the consent of youths of age 12 and 13 was considered notwithstanding as they may lack
the mental capacity to fully understand what they are consenting to. Having considered that Rita’s
consent is vitiated, it is eminent for one to highlight the liability of Fred which would arise from this
particular scenario.

Fred’s liability in this scenario would arise either under s.18 of OAPA or s.20 of OAPA which are
wounding with intent and malicious wounding respectively. The Actus-reus of s.18 and s.20 is the same
therefore both of these offences are generally argued together. The Actus-reus of these offences
involves the unlawful or malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to a person. One would
now highlight what wounding means in the legal language, in law a wound requires more than just a
mere scratch or gaze, it requires the penetration of both the layers of the skin, namely dermis and
epidermis. The second aspect of the actus-reus is to cause GBH. Grievous bodily harm was defined in
DPP v Smith as ‘really serious bodily harm or injury’. However, this does not provide sufficient guidance
and so does the case of R v Janjua. Whether GBH was caused or not, this is for the jury to determine.
The case of R v Bollom provided a little more information as to GBH when the court of Appeal said that
in determining whether the harm was serious or not, the jury should take into account the age, physical
fitness of the victim and as well as the nature of the harm or injury caused. GBH may not be life
threatening or permanent and jury could take help from the charge sheet of CPS in determining what
amounts to serious harm and what doesn’t. In the current scenario, Fred wounded Rita and this would
be left on medical evidence which would be determined by the jury. One cannot say that Fred caused
grievous bodily harm to Rita as the statement of the question explicitly states that the wound was not of
serious nature albeit it required three stitches. Having established the actus-reus of the offence, one
would now highlight the mens-rea of s.18 and s.20 respectively and would see the category in which the
offence in the question falls.

The main difference between s.18 and s.20 is the Mens-rea. S.18 is applicable on crimes of specific
intent. To be convicted of wounding with intent, the defendant should have the intention of causing
grievous bodily harm or the intention to prevent or resist arrest. In the issue in the question, Fred did
not intend to cause grievous bodily harm to Rita which could be seen through the words “reluctantly
agreed”. Furthermore, this is not a crime of specific intent, therefore one would now highlight the
mensrea of s.20 and to see whether Fred could be convicted of malicious wounding or not. The mens-
rea of s.20 is malice, which is intention or subjective recklessness, this was established in R v Mowatt
where the courts held that it was necessary for the Defendant to intend or foresee the harm befalling V
but it was not necessary to intend or foresee the degree of harm actually sustained. This was further
approved in R v Paramenter. As per the facts of the case, Fred is liable under s.20 of OAPA which is
malicious wounding. He fulfilled the actus-reus requirement by wounding Rita and fulfilled the mens-rea
as he foresaw that carving the letter ‘F’ on Rita’s arm would cause some harm albeit he did not foresee
the degree of harm actually sustained. Lastly, the causal connection would be seen before establishing
any liability. Fred’s act and the harm resulted should be linked and the said causal link should not have
any gray areas. The prosecution would prove the existence of the causation by establishing both, the
factual and legal causation. The factual causation involves a ‘but for test’, according to which it has to be
established that D was the factual reason or the cause for the harm that resulted. Had it not been for D’s
act, the harm would not have resulted, which is true in this particular situation, if Fred did not carve the
letter on Rita’s arm, the harm would not have been done. Having established factual causation, it is
eminent for the prosecution to establish legal causation because this is the one which would result in D
being liable for the offence. Legal causation is fulfilled where it is appropriate to hold D liable for the
harm. There were no intervening events or breakages in the causal link. Henceforth, it could be said that
the said scenario fulfills both the legal and factual causation thus establishing a proper causal link
between the act of the defendant and the harm resulted to the victim. Therefore, liability of Fred would
arise for maliciously wounding Rita under s.20 of OAPA

Moving on to the issue concerning Henry, Henry and Fred involve in a fist fight where Fred punches
Henry who ends up fracturing his wrist. As the scenario portrays, Fred committed a common assault,
namely battery which ended up causing grievous bodily harm to Henry. Having said that, it is eminent to
establish whether Fred fulfilled the actus-reus and mens-rea requirement of battery or not. As discussed
earlier, actus-reus of battery is the application of unlawful force on the victim. In the said scenario, there
is a force being applied, the punch, and the said force is unlawful as there are no excuses. Fred could
bring an argument for self-defence where he may try to prove that he was acting just to save himself
from Henry but before he could build the basis of this argument, he would probably fail. That is because
the key element for using this defence is that it is only available in situations where the defendant is
acting defensively. As established in R v Wilkinson, acts of retaliation would result in this defence being
unavailable. Fred’s actions although were proportionate to the threat, were not defensive rather were
in retaliation to Henry’s acts. Therefore, this defence could not be raised by Fred. Having established the
actus-reus of battery, it is eminent for one to see whether the mens-rea requirement is being fulfilled or
not. As stated before, the mens-rea for battery requires the intention or foresight of the unlawful
contact. Fred’s actions were loud and clear for anyone to understand that he intended to throw that
punch and that he intended to make an unlawful contact with Henry because what else is expected in a
fist fight? Therefore, Fred committed battery by punching Henry. Having said that, punching Henry
resulted in him knocking over and fracturing his wrist, this amounts to grievous bodily harm and now
one would consider Fred’s liability under s.18 and s.20 of OAPA.

Fred’s actions fulfill the actus-reus requirement of both these offences which have been discussed above
in para 2. Fred unlawfully and maliciously caused grievous bodily harm to Henry thus fulfilling the
actusreus requirement of s.18 and s.20. Having said that, one would now narrow down that which of the
said sections would be more appropriate for Fred’s liability concerning this issue. The mens-rea of s.18
requires there to be a specific intent for the particular crime, there has to be an intention to wound or
cause grievous bodily harm. Whereas, the mens-rea for s.20 requires an intention or foresight of causing
some harm albeit that there was no foresight or intention of the harm that was actually caused.
Although this is for the jury to decide, however, Fred’s liability is more likely to arise under s.20 of the
OAPA for causing GBH to Henry. Although he may not have intended to cause GBH, he still punched
Henry to cause some harm which is enough for establishing liability for malicious wounding. Moreover,
the causal link is unbroken, had it not been for Fred’s act (punch), Henry would not have knocked down
and he would not have fractured his wrist. Both the legal and factual causation are established.

Coming to the third issue, it can be seen that Fred assaulted Toni when he raised his hand in a
threatening way which resulted in Toni dropping the baby who suffers some bruises. Here two liabilities
may arise, the first one being assault. Before moving forward it is essential for one to highlight what is
meant by assault or ‘psychic assault’. A person is guilty of assault if he intentionally or recklessly leads
someone to apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force to his body, see the case of R v
Venna. While proving assault, prosecution has to prove three elements of the Actus-reus of assault. This
first one being apprehension, prosecution may prove that the actions of the defendant led the Victim in
apprehending fear. Furthermore, the prosecution has to prove that the said apprehension of force
should be immediate. Although now, immediacy is not as important as it once used to be as was seen in
Smith v Chief Constable of Working where the defendant peered through the curtains of V’s apartment.
He was charged with assault as he frightened V who then called the police. The defendant brought the
argument that this charge was a hogwash as he could not assault V as he had not done anything which
would put V in fear of immediate personal violence. However, his argument was rejected on the ground
that his actions were likely to instill fear of potential violence, even though objectively his position
outside the apartment made it physically impossible. The third limb of the actus-reus of assault is that
the apprehension should be of an unlawful force. As discussed earlier, unlawful is anything which has no
excuses or defences available like self-defence etc, see the case of R v Cousins. Considering the situation
presented in the question, Fred has fulfilled the actus-reus requirement of assault as he led Toni in
apprehending the application of an immediate unlawful force. Now one would evaluate whether Fred
fulfilled the mens-rea requirement too or not. The mens-rea of assault is that the defendant should have
intended or foresaw that his actions would lead V in apprehending the application of unlawful force. As
per the facts of this case portray, it is eminent that Fred intended or atleast foresaw that him raising his
hand in a threatening way would lead in Toni apprehending fear. Therefore, Fred may be liable for
assaulting Toni.
Fred’s liability doesn’t end here, his act of assaulting Toni resulted in Toni dropping the baby he was
holding due to which the baby suffered bruises. One would now discuss Fred’s liability arising under the
s.47 of the OAPA for causing actual bodily harm. In order to establish liability under actual bodily harm,
it is eminent for the prosecution to prove that there was a common assault, the said common assault
resulted in actual bodily harm, and that there was a proper causal link between the act and the harm
that resulted. As was established in R v Martin, direct contact is not necessary for establishing battery.
Fred’s action of assaulting Toni resulted in the baby being dropped due to which the baby faced bruises,
therefore, it can be said that Fred is liable for battery too as he had the relevant actus-reus, which is the
application of unlawful force. Moreover, he had the relevant mens-rea, as he had the intention or
foresight that his acts might result in an infliction of an unlawful force.

Having established a common assault, it is pertinent to highlight what is actual bodily harm, its
actusreus and mens-rea. Actual Bodily harm was defined in the case of R v Donovan where Swift J
defined it as being “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.
Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must be more than merely transient and trifling”

However, it is the domain of the jury to decide whether the act contributes to actual bodily harm or not
and the jury can rely upon the charge sheet of CPS while determining it. In the current situation, the
baby has faced some bruises which although not serious are more than transient and trifling and the
jury would be the one to determine it. Coming to the mens-rea of s.47, to generate a liability under s.47
of OAPA, it is not necessary for one to have the intention of causing some type of harm, rather the mere
intention or recklessness as to cause apprehension of an unlawful contact or to apply unlawful force is
enough. Therefore, Fred, may not have the intention or foresight to harm the baby, but he was sure that
his actions might result in some type of unlawful contact to take place. Having fulfilled the actus-reus
and the mens-rea requirement of ABH, it is eminent for one to establish a proper causal link. Had it not
been for Fred’s act, Toni would not have apprehended fear, he would not have dropped the baby, and
the baby would not have faced these bruises. Therefore, it is clear that Fred is likely to be convicted of
assaulting Toni and causing ABH to the baby.

Moving on to the last issue concerning PC Dibble, Fred resists a lawful arrest and ends up causing serious
cuts to PC Dibble’s arm. In the current situation, Fred’s liability would be viewed under s.18 of OAPA. He
fulfills the actus-reus requirement of s.18 which is to unlawfully or maliciously wound or cause GBH or
resist or prevent a lawful arrest. In the course of resisting this lawful arrest, Fred injures Dibble got
serious cuts on his arms which means that Fred probably wounded PC Dibble. This would depend on the
medical evidence, whether both the dermis or epidermis were penetrated or not however even if he did
not wound the police constable, he still caused GBH. The requirements of GBH have been discussed
earlier. Furthermore, Fred had the intention to resist this lawful arrest, therefore he fulfills the mens-rea
requirement as well. Moreover, Fred’s actions of preventing the arrest were the cause of PC Dibble in
sustaining serious cuts to his arm. Therefore, it is safe to say that Fred may be liable under s.18 of OAPA
for wounding with intent while preventing his lawful arrest.

Having addressed all the issues in detail, one would sum all of Fred’s liabilities. To cap it all, Fred would
be liable for maliciously wounding Rita while carving the letter ‘F’ on her arm using a penknife under
s.20 of OAPA. He would be liable for physically assaulting (battery) Henry and in turn causing GBH to him
thus generating another liability under s.20 of OAPA. Moreover, Fred assaulted Toni and would be liable
for causing Actual bodily harm to the baby which was dropped by Toni, this liability would arise under
s.47 of OAPA. Lastly Fred would be liable for resisting a lawful arrest and causing GBH to the police
constable arresting him, Fred would therefore be liable under s.18 of OAPA for wounding with intent.
Therefore, one may feel no qualms in asserting that Fred is in deep trouble.