S 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861

Offences Against the Person Act 1861: A Comprehensive Overview

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) remains a cornerstone of English criminal law, despite its age and numerous amendments. This Act outlines a wide range of offences relating to violence, assault, and various forms of harm against individuals. Understanding its provisions is crucial for anyone studying law, working in the criminal justice system, or simply interested in the legal framework surrounding personal safety. This article will provide a detailed overview of key sections of the OAPA 1861, exploring the elements of each offence and highlighting important case law. We will also address some frequently asked questions.

Introduction: The Historical Context and Structure

Enacted in 1861, the OAPA consolidated various pre-existing common law offences against the person. Its structure is complex, with sections covering a spectrum of conduct, from minor assaults to grievous bodily harm. The Act's longevity reflects its enduring relevance, although its Victorian origins sometimes lead to challenges in applying its provisions to modern circumstances. The Act's language can be archaic, requiring careful interpretation in contemporary legal practice. This complexity underscores the need for detailed examination of its key sections.

Section 18: Malicious wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent

Section 18 is arguably the most serious offence under the OAPA 1861. It criminalizes the malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent to do some grievous bodily harm or to resist or prevent lawful apprehension. Let's break down the elements:

• Malicious: This doesn't necessarily mean spite or ill-will. It means that the act was unlawful and intentional, or reckless. Recklessness means the defendant foresaw the risk of causing some harm and went ahead anyway. The case of R v Mowatt [1968] clarifies that foresight of some harm is sufficient, not necessarily the precise harm that occurred.

• Wounding: This requires the breaking of the continuity of the skin, however minor. A superficial scratch might not suffice, but a cut that breaks the skin, however slight, will generally satisfy the requirement.

• Grievous bodily harm (GBH): This is not defined within the Act. The courts have interpreted it to mean "really serious harm," as established in DPP v Smith [1961]. This is a question of fact for the jury, taking into account the victim’s age, health, and other relevant factors. Factors considered can include the length of recovery, the need for medical intervention, the lasting effects, and the psychological impact.

• Intent: The prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to cause GBH or intended to resist or prevent lawful apprehension. This intent can be direct or oblique (indirect). Oblique intent applies where the defendant foresaw GBH as a virtually certain consequence of their actions, as clarified in R v Woollin [1998].

The maximum penalty for a Section 18 offence is life imprisonment. The severity of the offence, and the potential for a life sentence, underlines the importance of this section in the context of violent crime.

Section 20: Malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm

Section 20 is a less serious offence than Section 18, as it doesn't require proof of intent to cause GBH or to resist arrest. Instead, it requires proof of malice (unlawful and intentional or reckless act) and the causing of wounding or GBH. The elements are:

• Malicious: As in Section 18, this means unlawful and intentional, or reckless. The level of foresight required for recklessness is the same as in Section 18. The defendant need only foresee the risk of some harm, not necessarily GBH.

• Wounding or inflicting GBH: The definitions of wounding and GBH remain the same as in Section 18.

The maximum penalty for a Section 20 offence is five years' imprisonment. The difference between Section 18 and Section 20 lies primarily in the mens rea (mental element) – the intent. Section 20 requires proof of malice, whereas Section 18 requires proof of specific intent.

Section 47: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH)

Section 47 covers assault occasioning ABH. This requires proof of:

• Assault: This is defined as an act that causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. This doesn't require actual physical contact. A mere threat, such as a raised fist, can be sufficient. The case of R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] extended the definition to include silent phone calls causing psychiatric harm.

• Battery: This is defined as the unlawful application of force to another person. This requires direct or indirect application of force. Indirect application could involve causing something to hit the victim (e.g., throwing an object).

• Occasioning ABH: The assault or battery must have caused the ABH. Actual bodily harm is defined as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim. This includes bruises, grazes, minor cuts, and psychiatric injuries (as established in R v Chan Fook [1994]).

The maximum penalty for a Section 47 offence is five years' imprisonment. This section is frequently used to prosecute cases involving violence that doesn't reach the threshold of GBH.

Distinguishing Between Sections 18, 20, and 47

The key distinctions between these three sections lie in the mens rea and the level of harm caused. Section 18 requires intent to cause GBH or to resist arrest. Section 20 requires malice (unlawful act with intention or recklessness as to some harm), and Section 47 requires an assault or battery causing ABH. The level of harm increases from ABH (Section 47) to GBH (Sections 18 and 20), with Section 18 carrying the most serious penalties due to the specific intent requirement. Overlapping can occur; an act might satisfy the elements of multiple sections, leading to the prosecution selecting the most appropriate charge.

Case Law Examples

Numerous cases have shaped the interpretation and application of these sections. Some landmark cases include:

• R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991]: This case clarified the meaning of recklessness in the context of Section 20. The House of Lords held that the defendant must foresee the risk of some harm, not necessarily the specific harm caused.

• R v Bollom [2003]: This case highlighted the importance of considering the victim's characteristics when assessing whether harm constitutes GBH. The court held that bruises on a young child could amount to GBH due to their vulnerability.

• R v Dica [2004]: This case established that transmitting a sexually transmitted infection could amount to GBH if the defendant knew they were infected and failed to disclose this information.

• R v Burstow [1998]: This case extended the definition of ABH to include psychiatric injuries caused by the defendant's actions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can a Section 20 charge be brought if the defendant didn't intend to cause harm?

A: Yes, a Section 20 charge can be brought if the prosecution can prove that the defendant acted recklessly, meaning they foresaw the risk of some harm occurring and proceeded anyway.

Q: What is the difference between assault and battery?

A: Assault is the apprehension of immediate unlawful personal violence, while battery is the unlawful application of force. Battery requires physical contact, while assault doesn't.

Q: What constitutes "malicious" under Sections 18 and 20?

A: "Malicious" means the act was unlawful and either intentional or reckless. Recklessness requires foresight of the risk of some harm.

Q: Can self-defense be a valid defense to charges under the OAPA 1861?

A: Yes, self-defense is a valid defense, but it must be proportionate to the threat faced. The defendant's actions must have been necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.

Q: What happens if someone is charged under multiple sections of the OAPA 1861?

A: The prosecution will choose the section that best reflects the severity of the crime and the defendant's intent. The defendant might face multiple charges, but ultimately the court will decide on the most appropriate charge to convict.

Conclusion: The Enduring Relevance of the OAPA 1861

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861, despite its age, remains a critical piece of legislation in the English criminal justice system. Its provisions, though sometimes complex and requiring careful interpretation, provide the framework for prosecuting a wide range of offences against the person. Understanding the nuances of Sections 18, 20, and 47, along with relevant case law, is vital for anyone involved in or studying criminal law. This Act's continued use highlights its enduring importance in safeguarding individuals from violence and harm, and the ongoing need for its careful application to modern circumstances. The potential for overlapping offences and varying levels of mens rea emphasize the complexities and subtle distinctions within the Act, further solidifying its place as a crucial area of legal study and practice.