OAPA, or Offences against the Person Act 1861, criminalizes different non-fatal crimes (Chisholm, 2021). Section 47 Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) includes offenses that occur when an individual assaults another person leading to ABH, such as minor gaze and bruises. In addition, section 18 on Grievous Bodily harm (GBH) entails the most adverse violent crime, attracting more serious convictions than in section 8 (Legislation.gov.uk, 2023). It remains critical the consider culpability and injury levels when determining the case to ensure the right convictions (Sentencing Council, 2021). The paper will analyze Ted, Vicky, and Dougie’s case according to OAPA 1861, sections 47 and 18.
Issue
Ted remained violent to Vicky throughout their marriage. However, Vicky had never reported him to the law enforcers. In the past, Ted had never been investigated for any criminal crime, indicating no past convictions. On arrival at the pub on Saturday 6th, 2022, a night before Christmas, Ted arrived home and became violent to Vicky and their son Dougie. Vicky had a fractured skull, with contentious over her head, heavy finger bruising on her neck, bruising on the shoulder, and entirely bloodshot eyes. Three months later, Vicky developed blurred vision and headaches and suffered from epilepsy. She gave up her job because she had lost her capacity to work. Moreover, Dougie had a heavily grazed and bruised chin and bruises on his stomach.
Rule
Offenses Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA)
The actual bodily harm offenses are established in S.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861. It states that the crime of committing an assault leads to actual bodily harm. The statuses refer to assault, and the crime may also happen due to battery. It remains common for crimes in s.47 to occur through battery instead of assault. Actual bodily harm refers to injury and hurts that interfere with the victim’s comfort and health. The harm should be short-term but must be manageable. Breaking teeth, grazes, and bruises are included in the ABH. Moreover, bodily harm includes psychiatric injury but only medically proven conditions that include more than distress, panic, and fear (e-law resources.co.uk, 2022).
The description of an assault leading to ABH or actual bodily harm includes Mens Rea claiming that the defendant was reckless or intended to assault or batter. There is no need to demonstrate that the defendant foresaw or intended actual bodily harm (Gardener, n.d). Actus Reus claims that the defendant should commit a battery or assault, which leads to actual bodily harm to the victim. ABH offense is divided into three factors: evidence should prove that a battery or harm occurred, the victim should have experienced actual bodily harm, and proof should demonstrate that actual bodily harm occurred through typical battery or assaults (Digestible Notes, 2023).
In this case, Ted intentionally and recklessly battered his wife, Vicky, resulting in bodily harm. Vicky had a fractured skull, contentious over her head, heavy finger bruising on her neck, bruising on the shoulder, and entirely bloodshot eyes. She required two operations due to bleeding in her brain. According to the victim’s statement, it is evident that she stayed in the hospital for three weeks after the battering. Three months later, Vicky developed blurred vision and headaches and suffered from epilepsy making her unable to work. Therefore, the injuries affected her health and comfort, eventually making her incapable of working. Moreover, Ted intentionally battered Vicky, and the battering led to physical harm.
Section 47 OAPA 1861
Crown Prosecution Service (2022) states that the assault causing actual bodily harm in section 47 OAPA 1861 offense occurs when an individual recklessly and intentionally assaults another person causing actual bodily harm. It should be approved that the assault leads to bodily harm, including hurt connected to interfering with the comfort and health of the person, and it need not be long-term but must remain trifling and transient (Law Commission, 2015).
In this case, Ted assaulted Dougie recklessly and intentionally when he tried to defend his mother, causing Dougie actual bodily harm. It has been proved that Dougie obtained actual bodily harm from the assault because he had been in hospital. A victim’s personal statement indicates that he was discharged after staying in the hospital for a day. Despite having recovered from the injuries after around a week, the assault resulted in actual bodily harm to Dougie, who sustained a heavily grazed and bruised chin and bruises on his stomach. The law indicates that the injuries should not necessarily permanently harm the person’s health.
Section 18
According to e-lawresources.co.uk (2023), Section 18 claims that nobody should intentionally cause grievous bodily harm or prevent detainer or apprehension of any individual. The actus reus in Section 18 offense claims that the offense must be unlawful, leading to grievous bodily harm or wound on any person. In addition, section 18 mens rea requires either intention to prevent or resist constitutional detainer of any individual and intention to lead to GBH. In this case, Ted caused grievous bodily harm to Vicky because the injuries affected her health and changed her life. He possessed the malicious intention to cause the GBH to her.
Application
Offenses Against the Person Act 1861: Actual Bodily Harm ABH under Section 47
Legislation.gov.uk. (2023) posits that Section 47 argues that assault occasioning bodily harm claims that whoever is convicted of any assault leading to actual bodily harm remains liable to be maintained in penal servitude (England and Wales version). Section 47, assault occasioning bodily harm, claims that whoever is convicted of any assault leading to actual bodily harm remains liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and anybody convicted for a common assault upon incitement remains liable at court discretion for imprisonment not exceeding two years (Northern Ireland version) (Ministry of Justice, 2020).
Crown Prosecution Service (2022) states that where assault includes battering that remains trifling or transient, a prosecutor should identify whether a common assault charge or actual bodily harm is appropriate. The prosecutor should determine aggravating elements of the case, the offender’s culpability, injuries experienced by the victim, the general harm caused, and the likely sentence. Various guidelines inform the decision. They include battery should not get charged solely to maintain the offense in the magistrates’ court. More so, if the case remains evidence-led and the victim fails to support the prosecution should not be a reason to lower charges. Moreover, where actual bodily harm charges are preferred, the guilty plea acceptance should only be justified if considerable changes in situations that impact the seriousness of the crime exist. The charges should be determined by concluding that the injuries caused are less severe or profound (Calendar-UK.co.uk, 2023).
Crown Prosecution Service (2022) argue that adverse injury includes severe and extensive bruising, damaged bones and teeth, cuts, and injuries leading to unconsciousness. Section 39 highlights that injuries include superficial cuts, reddening of the skin, grazes, abrasions, swellings, and scratches. In addition, the injury level will determine the level of charge and actual bodily harm that remain appropriate in situations of the case, such as aggravated features, including the situation in which the assault happened, such as repeated threats, considerable violence, assault on similar complaint (Stuart Miller, 2023).
Other aggravating elements include the presence of head-butting, kicking, and punching, vulnerability and intimidation of the victim, including a pattern of the same crime against the person, in the past or in various crimes to be charged, the relevance of past convictions, and if the victim is likely a Special Measure beneficially. Therefore actual bodily harm should be charged where the harm caused remains serious, even if the offender did not intend to perform the crime. Special Measures include victims of the most adverse crimes, such as domestic violence victims, sexual offenses, arson intending to wound or endanger life, false imprisonment, and causing grievous bodily harm intentionally (Crown Prosecution Service, 2021).
The court must consider culpability and injury levels when determining the case (Gray & Co Solicitors, 2011). Culpability levels include persistent and prolonged assault, strangulation, use of dangerous weapons, victim vulnerability, and degree of planning. Medium culpability entails using a weapon not in group A and cases, not in A and C. Lesser culpability includes no weapon, excessive self-defense, short-lived assault, and mental disorder (The Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales, 2021). Harm includes category one severe psychological and physical harm, category two harm falling between one and three, and category three includes some degree of psychological and physical harm with limited effect on the victim (Sentencing Council, 2021). The offenders charged with actual bodily harm may get tried in the Crown Court and get imprisonment of five years (Unknown Author, 2015).
In Ted’s case, the culpability falls at level A because of the vulnerability of the victim’s persistent assault. The harm falls under category one due to severe physical injury with substantial harm to the person (Sentencing Council, 2021). Ted’s assault towards Dougie involves actual bodily harm with aggravated features. Ted punched Dougie on his chin, making him fall, and kicked him on the stomach while lying on the floor. Moreover, it showed repeated assault of punching and kicking, and Dougie was vulnerable because he was ten years and beneficiary of Special Measures. Dougie’s injuries remained serious because they included bruises and grazes. The injuries required medical assistance because the victim could not treat them alone, proving that Ted caused actual bodily harm to Dougie. Therefore, harm category 1 attracts one year and six months to four years in custody, and culpability attracts two years and c months in custody. However, since Ted does not have past convictions, the seriousness of the offense can be minimized (Sentencing Council, 2021)
Section 18-wounding/leading to GBH with intent section 18 and Section 20-Inflicting GBH/Unlawful wounding
Legislation.gov.uk. (2023) states that in section 18, shooting or attempting to, or wounding with the intention to perform grievous bodily claim that whoever shall maliciously or unconstitutionally use any means to wound or result in adverse bodily harm to any individual with the intent to perform serious bodily harm or prevent or resist constitutional apprehension or detainer of any individual, remain guilty of a felony and getting convicted shall be liable to be maintained in penal servitude for life (Chisholm, 2021). Section 18, intent wounding, is that the offender intended to cause GBH, hence the mens era remains more stringent than in section 20 of wounding maliciously (MFI Law, 2021). Section 18 demands proof of the intended GBH, and section 20 demands that the offender foresaw the harm. Therefore, even if the offender did not intend to cause GBH, he can get convicted under section 18 if he recklessly caused the harm and intended to prevent or resist the detention of any individual (Digestible Notes, 2023).
The court should evaluate harm and culpability and harm when determining the offense (Sentencing Council, 2023). Crown Prosecution Service (2022) states that Golding [2014] EWCA Crim shows that harm should not have to be permanent or dangerous, and the evaluation of harm remains a jury’s matter, applying social standards. In addition, no necessity exists for an assault to have been performed previously. There could be GBH: Golding infliction. Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 assists the prosecutors when identifying the appropriate charge. It highlights that the injuries should get evaluated regarding the specific victim. The person’s health and age or any other elements should be considered (Vhs fletchers solicitors, 2023). Furthermore, the injury levels should demonstrate the necessary charge levels, and life-changing injuries should be considered as GBH sustained and considerable medical treatment demonstrate GBH injuries despite later full or relatively complete recovery (Hodder Education, n.d).
According to Sentencing Council (2021), harm is grouped into categories one, two, and three. In category one, the injury is life-threatening or grave, leading to psychological and physical harm resulting in medical treatment, third-party care, permanent dependability, and permanent, irreversible psychological condition or issue with a permanent impact on the ability of the victim to perform daily activities and work. Group two includes grave injury leading to long-term conditions or injury, not in group one. Group three includes all other adverse harm and wounding cases (Lawtons Solicitors, 2023). More so, the culpability level includes high suffocation, strangulation, or asphyxiation, utilizing hazardous instruments, vulnerable victims due to individual attributes and age, a considerable degree of premeditation and planning, and persistent and prolonged assault. Medium culpability entails utilizing a weapon and limited group activity. In contrast, lesser culpability entails no weapon utilized, excessive self-defense, mental instability, and offender acting due to extreme and prolonged abuse or violence by the victim (Law Commission, 2014).
More so, the prosecutor should prove under section 18 that the offender intended to cause serious bodily harm or would the victim, nothing less than the intention to bring out the results which materialized. The offender intends to attain a result that they consciously perform to achieve the result (The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 2021). Some elements indicating deliberate action to cause injury include a deliberate choice of a weapon, planned or repeated attack, and implementation of an article to bring injury, such as previous threats or utilizing an offensive weapon against the head of the victim kicking the head. In such a case, the offense’s seriousness remains similar to sections 18 and 20 (Olliers Solicitors, 2022).
In Ted’s case, Ted has high culpability because he repeatedly attacks the victim’s vulnerability, strangulation, and persistent assault (Sentencing Council, 2021). Vicky picked a pan, hitting her on the head and making her unconscious. In addition, Vicky remained vulnerable because Ted had a history of battering her, although she never reported it. Ted strangled Vicky before Dougie intervened, leaving her with heavy finger bruises around her neck. Ted deliberately chose to use the pan as a weapon to hit Vicky on the head, which was a repeated attack and caused the breakage of her skull and contusions over her head. In addition, the injuries could be considered GBH injuries because they are life-threatening, cause psychological and physical harm leading to third-party care, dependency, and medical treatment, and a permanent psychological condition (Sentencing Council, 2021). Vicky became unconscious after the attack, remained in the hospital for three weeks, and required two operations due to brain bleeding. After three months, Vicky experienced blurred vision and continuous headaches from the injuries and suffered from epilepsy. Therefore, the injuries adversely affected her health and were life-changing because she could no longer work, and the epileptic condition may affect her life and daily activities (Sentencing Council, 2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper analyzed Ted, Vicky, and Dougie’s case according to OAPA 1861, sections 47 and 18. According to the OAPA 1861, Ted remains guilty of violating Actual Bodily Harm ABH under Section 47, section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) section. From the analysis, it remains evident that Ted maliciously and illegally caused adverse bodily harm to Dougie contrary to section 47 of the OAPA 1861. He remains guilty and may face five years imprisonment (Sentencing Council, 2021). Section 8 makes Ted guilty of causing GBH to Vicky. Ted’s case falls under category A culpability which attracts twelve years in custody. However, factors such as no past convictions can minimize the seriousness of the offenses. Section 18 is viewed as a more advanced crime carrying a more significant sentence. If convicted of the offense, the maximum sentence includes life imprisonment. The most severe cases attract a starting point of twelve years in prison. However, the less severe cases start at three years (Old Bailey Solicitors, 2023 ). Ted risks getting convicted with Section 18 GHB on Vicky and may face 12 years or life imprisonment. However, the fact that he did not have past convictions, the seriousness of the case may reduce attracting a lesser conviction (JDSpicers Solicitors, 2022)
References
Calendar-UK.co.uk. (2023). What is a Section 47 Offence? https://www.calendar-uk.co.uk/faq/what-is-a-section-47-offence
Chisholm, N. (2021). English Law of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Outline and Case Summaries. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3771131#:~:text=s47%20OAPA%201861%3A%20%E2%80%9CWhosoever%20shall,term%20not%20exceeding%20five%20years.%E2%80%9D
Crown Prosecution Service. (2021). Special Measure. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/special-measures
Crown Prosecution Service. (2022). Offenses Against the Person, Incorporating the Charging Standard. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard#:~:text=Child%20section%20below.-,Assault%20occasioning%20Actual%20Bodily%20Harm%
Digestable Notes. (2023). Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. https://digestiblenotes.com/law/criminal/actual_bodily_harm.php
e-law resources.co.uk. (2022). Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under S.47. http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/S-47-Actual-Bodily-Harm-%28ABH%29.php
e-lawresources.co.uk. (2023). Wounding and GBH s.20 s. 18 OAPA 1861. http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Wounding-and-Grievous-Bodily-Harm-%28GBH%29.php
e-lawresources.co.uk. (2023 ). Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) under S.47. http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/S-47-Actual-Bodily-Harm-%28ABH%29.php
Gardener, J. (n.d). Rationality and the Rule of Law in Offences Against the Person. https://johngardnerathome.info/pdfs/offencesagainsttheperson.pdf
Gray & Co Solicitors. (2011). Section 20 Assault and Section 18 Assault – Grievous Bodily Harm. https://www.grayandcosolicitors.co.uk/section-20-assault-and-section-18-assault-grievous-bodily-harm/
Hodder Education. (n.d ). Review Law. https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazine-extras/Law%20Review/Law%20Rev%20Vol%209%20No%202/LawRev-9_2-centre-spread.pdf?ext=.pdf
JDSpicers Solicitors. (2022). What are the Sentencing Guidelines for GBH? https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/sentencing-guidelines-for-GBH
Law Commission. ( 2015). Reform of Offenses Against the Person. https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/11/lc361_offences_against_the_person_summary_new.pdf
Law Commission. (2014). Reform of Offences Against the Person: A Scooping Consulting Paper. Consultation Paper No 17. https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/06/cp217_offences_against_the_person.pdf
Lawtons Solicitors. (2023). ABH vs. GBH: What is the Difference? https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/abh-vs-gbh-which-is-the-more-serious-offence/
Legislation.gov.uk. (2023 ). Offenses against the Person Act 1861: Section 47 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/47
Legislation.gov.uk. (2023). Offenses against the Person Act 1861: Section 18 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/18
Legislation.gov.uk. (2023). Offenses against the Person Act 1861: Section 20 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/20
LMFI Law. (2021). Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) Solicitors in London. https://www.mfilaw.co.uk/criminal-law/serious-crime/grievous-bodily-harm-gbh.php
Ministry of Justice. (2020). Assault Offences. https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/revised-assault-offences-guideline/
Old Bailey Solicitors. (2023 ). Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). https://www.oblaw.co.uk/same-harm-different-sentence-how-section-18-and-section-20-gbh-differ/
Olliers Solicitors. (2022). Assault & Grievous Bodily Harm. https://www.olliers.com/criminal-law/assault-grievous-bodily-harm/
Sentencing Council. (2021). Assault Occasionally Actual Bodily Harm/Racially or Religiously Aggravated ABH. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/assault-occasioning-actual-bodily-harm-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-abh/
Sentencing Council. (2021). Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm/Wounding with Intent to do GBH. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-grievous-bodily-harm-with-intent-to-do-grievous-bodily-harm-wounding-with-intent-to-do-gbh-2/
Sentencing Council. (2022). Assault Offences Guidelines: Response to Consultation. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2021-05-25-Assault-Consultation-Response-FINAL.pdf
Stuart Miller. (2023). What is the Sentence for Actual Bodily Harm in 2023? https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/sentences/sentence-for-actual-bodily-harm-offences/
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. (2021). Revised Sentencing Guidelines for Assault Offences and Attempted Murder. https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/revised-sentencing-guidelines-for-assault-offences-and-attempted-murder/
The Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales. (2021). CBA Response to the Sentencing Council’s Assault Sentencing Consultation from 16th April 2020 to 15th September 2020. https://www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Sentencing-Guidelines-Council-Assault-Guidelines-2020.pdf
Unknown Author. (2015). Offenses Against the Person: Overview. https://s3-eu-west2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/11/lc361_offences_against_the_person_overview_new-1.pdf
Vhs fletchers solicitors. (2023). Grievous Bodily Harm and Wounding, with and Without Intent. https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/grievous-bodily-harm-wounding/
write