Wounding: Case Law and Mens Rea
This page delves deeper into the legal interpretation of wounding through case law and explores the mens rea (mental element) for both Section 20 and Section 18 GBH.
Example: In JJC v Eisenhower (1983), it was held that internal bleeding without a cut to the skin does not constitute a wound.
Example: R v Wood (1830) established that a broken bone without skin breakage is not considered a wound.
The mens rea of GBH s20 is explained using the term "maliciously", which was interpreted in Cunningham 1957:
- It requires either an intention to cause some level of harm or recklessness as to whether some harm was caused.
- There's no need to intend serious harm or a wound, only the mens rea for some harm is required.
Highlight: For Section 20, the defendant does not need to foresee the specific injury that occurred.
The mens rea of GBH s18 is more stringent:
- Mere intention to wound is not sufficient.
- The defendant must intend to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist/prevent lawful apprehension.
Example: In R v Taylor (2009), the Court of Appeal quashed a Section 18 conviction because intention to wound was not enough; the defendant must have intended "really serious harm".
Highlight: Recklessness is not enough for the mens rea of Section 18; only intention will suffice, as stated in Saunders.
The page concludes with another case example, R v Morrison (1989), which further illustrates the prosecution's burden of proof in Section 18 cases.
