Talk:Grievous bodily harm

Cleanup tag moved to article. Washburnmav (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several sections need better paragraphing.Thomashauk (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Threats

threaten someone over the phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.207.187 (talk • contribs)

I'm surprised that no one has clarified for this, but threatening someone over the telephone can be (in a limited range of circumstances) Common Law Assault. Bilious 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it could be an assault art if the one receiving the threat was reasonably in fear, e.g. on a mobile phone you might not know whether the one making the threat was next to you, but it would not be appropriate to put such an element on the GBH page. Not would it be really so appropriate on the tort page you suggest. I have included it on the [common assault]] page in English law. David91 02:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bilious. You have to be put in immediate fear of violence for assault. If it is on the phone then it is unlikely that the fear is immediate, unless (as you say) the person was near you. There is a rather brilliant case called Tuberville v Savage (1669) that may interest you. Wright123 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I've taken out the words "assault occasioning" from the preamble because this only serves to confuse readers with the Sec. 47 offence of ABH. There is no offence of AOGBH!. There is also no need for an assault to occur in GBH - turning off an oxygen machine resulting in a PVS, whilst not causing death, would be a "causing" of GBH, but not an assault. --Rodhullandemu 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph

The term 'grievous bodily harm' was not introduced by sections 18 and 20 of the 1861 Act. It was introduced by Lord Ellenborough's Act (1803) (c.58). And it also appears in a number of other sections of the 1861 Act.

The term 'inflicting grievous bodily harm' does not appear in or apply to section 18 (it only appears in section 20) and it was introduced (or rather the word 'inflict' was introduced in this context) by the Prevention of Offences Act 1851.James500 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the first paragraph to reflect this. James500 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?

At least some of this page is directly copied from Criminal Solicitors London. That website does not appear to be free from copyright restriction, so can someone judge whether or not this page should be rewritten? --Sakrotac (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been copied. They are copying from us. The principle sources that I consulted were Halsbury's laws, Halsbury's statutes, SLD, the CPS website, Archbold, Blackstone's criminal practice and law reports from various places. James500 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article assault

I have removed the following material from the article assault so that it can be incorporated into this article where it belongs, as these offences are not assaults.James500 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction lies in the intent: under s.20, the infliction of a wound or grievous bodily harm need only be "unlawful or malicious". For a prosecution under section 18 to succeed, the Crown must prove that the accused wounded, or caused grievous bodily harm, with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Strictly speaking, assault is not an essential component of these offences. The test is whether the wound, or harm, resulted from the act of the accused: see Archbold's Criminal Pleading 2009 at 19-208. Grievous bodily harms means no more and no less than really serious bodily harm: DPP v. Smith [1961] AC 290. A wound requires the continuity of the whole skin to be broken: R. v. Wood [1830] I Mood. 278.

R v Clarence

I do not think the following passage is correct:

"In R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, at a time when the defendant knew that he was suffering from a venereal disease, he had sexual intercourse and communicated the disease to his wife. The court was reluctant to consider this either an "injury"."

Having looked at the report of this case in "The Law Reports" by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting, I cannot find anything that appears to be an assertion that Mrs Clarence did not in fact suffer bodily harm. As far as I can see, the judges who were in favour of quashing the conviction seem to have been concerned with the meaning of the words "inflict" and "assault" in sections 20 and 47 respectively. Some of them appear to say expressly that the wife had suffered grievous bodily harm. The judgement is lengthy (a little over 43 pages) and it is possible that I have missed something. But in the absence of some further source, such as a textbook or something published in one of the journals, I think I am going to have to remove this assertion altogether. James500 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflict and Cause

There are a couple of issues with the following paragraphs:

In R v Wilson, R v Jenkins,[9] a driver punched a pedestrian in the face. Lord Roskill: "I am content to accept, as did the full court, that there can be an infliction of grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 without an assault being committed."

In R v Mandair,[10] Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC. said, with the agreement of the majority of the House of Lords, "In my opinion . . . the word 'cause' is wider or at least not narrower than the word 'inflict'".[11] He also said that both words include acts and omissions.''

Lord Roskill himself quoted those words from a foreign judgement and later distinguished the foreign case from the case before him. It's inaccurate to quote him without context and if you do state the context, you'll find that the quotation has no legal value in English law.

I've looked through Lord Mackay's judgement in R v Mandair and I can't find any positive assertion that 'inflict' may include omissions. It was precisely because I was looking for an authority for that assertion that I chanced upon the wiki page for GBH. Alas, Mandair does not seem to be an authority for this. Kylemad (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source for the proposition that the section 18 offence can be committed by an omission with this edit. The same source then cites R v Mandair as authority for, it appears to me, the proposition that "inflict" might be generally construed in the same way as "cause". That might be why R v Mandair was previously cited in the article. James500 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJC or JCC

I am going to revert this edit to the position created by this edit, on the strength of this from BAILII and my recollection of the table of cases at the front of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. James500 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redlinks

Great idea to "see" for further information under a redlink ... :-/ 46.114.136.172 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]