Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) is a key statute that sets out several non-fatal offences against the person. This legislation has been developed and clarified through common law over many years. The Act covers a hierarchy of offences ranging from minor assaults to serious wounding with intent. Understanding the distinctions between these offences is essential, particularly the differences in their actus reus and mens rea requirements.
This content will be assessed in Paper 2 of the AQA A-Level Law examination.
Section 47: Assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm
Section 47 of the OAPA 1861 creates the offence of assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). Although the offence is contained in the statute, common law has developed detailed rules around its application. This is a triable-either-way offence, meaning it can be heard in either the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court, and carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.
The offence consists of an assault or battery that results in actual bodily harm to the victim. It sits in the middle of the hierarchy of non-fatal offences, being more serious than common assault or battery alone, but less serious than wounding or grievous bodily harm.
Actus reus of section 47
The actus reus of section 47 ABH has three distinct components, all of which must be established for the offence to be complete.
Many students mistakenly focus only on the resulting harm and forget to establish the initial assault or battery and the causal link between them. All three components must be addressed for a complete answer.
First component: Assault or battery
The prosecution must first prove that the defendant committed either an assault or a battery. Either will suffice, but all the elements of whichever is chosen must be present. An assault involves causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence, while battery involves the application of unlawful force.
The case of R v Chan-Fook (1994) confirmed that a complete assault or battery must be established as the foundation of the s47 offence. This means proving both the actus reus and mens rea of the initial assault or battery before moving on to consider the harm caused.
Second component: Causation
There must be a clear causal link between the assault or battery and the actual bodily harm suffered by the victim. The standard rules of causation apply here, requiring both factual causation (but-for test) and legal causation (the defendant's act must be a substantial and operative cause).
Case Example: R v Roberts (1971)
The victim jumped from a moving car to escape the defendant's unwanted sexual advances and was injured.
Legal principle established: The court held that the defendant's actions caused the injuries because escaping from physical danger is not a "daft" act that would break the chain of causation. The victim's response was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances.
Significance: This case demonstrates that causation can be established even when the victim's own actions directly cause the injury, provided those actions are a reasonable response to the defendant's unlawful conduct.
Third component: Actual bodily harm
Actual bodily harm means hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. The harm does not need to be permanent, but it should not be so trivial as to be completely insignificant.
In R v Miller (1954), the court established this definition, clarifying that ABH encompasses more than just the most minor injuries but does not require serious or lasting harm. The test focuses on whether the injury affects the victim's health or comfort in some meaningful way.
Scope of ABH - Extended by Case Law
The definition of actual bodily harm has been extended to include:
-
Psychiatric injury: In R v Chan-Fook (1994), the court confirmed that ABH can include recognised psychiatric conditions, not just physical injuries. However, mere fear, distress, or panic would not be sufficient without evidence of a diagnosed psychiatric condition.
-
Cutting hair: Although this may seem minor, cutting someone's hair without consent can amount to ABH because it interferes with the victim's comfort and bodily integrity.
Mens rea of section 47
The mens rea requirement for section 47 ABH is surprisingly limited. The defendant must have intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery that forms the basis of the offence. Crucially, there is no additional mens rea required for the harm caused.
The Surprising Principle in Section 47
This principle was firmly established in R v Roberts (1971). The defendant only needs to intend or be reckless as to the initial assault or battery. They do not need to intend or foresee that actual bodily harm will result.
This can lead to situations where defendants are convicted of causing ABH even though they did not intend or foresee such harm.
This approach has been criticised as potentially unjust, as it means a defendant who intended only minor force (a battery) can be convicted of the more serious offence of ABH if unexpected harm results, even where that harm was not foreseeable.
R v Parmenter (1991) reinforced the requirement that for recklessness, it is necessary to establish that the defendant actually appreciated the risk of some harm. It is not sufficient that they should have foreseen the risk as a reasonable person - they must have had subjective awareness of it.
Wounding and grievous bodily harm
Wounding and grievous bodily harm (GBH) offences represent the most serious non-fatal offences against the person. They are found in two separate sections of the OAPA 1861: sections 20 and 18. Both sections deal with the same types of harm (wounding or GBH), but they differ significantly in their mens rea requirements and consequently in their seriousness and sentencing.
Section 20: Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
The full statutory wording of section 20 states:
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm on any other person, either with or without a weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
A conviction under section 20 represents the lesser of the two wounding/GBH offences. It is a triable-either-way offence and carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The key distinction between section 20 and section 18 lies in the mens rea required.
Actus reus of section 20
The actus reus of section 20 requires the defendant to unlawfully wound or inflict grievous bodily harm on another person. Let us examine each component in detail.
Unlawfully
The requirement that the wounding or GBH be unlawful recognises that some acts causing such harm may be lawful. This covers several situations:
- Those acting in self-defence or in the prevention of crime, provided the force used is reasonable and proportionate
- Where the victim has consented to the risk of harm in limited circumstances, such as properly conducted sports and games, or necessary medical procedures
The burden is on the prosecution to prove the act was unlawful. If the defendant raises evidence of self-defence or consent, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Wound
A wound has a specific technical meaning in law. It exists where there is a break in the continuity of the skin causing external bleeding. This definition comes from the old case of Moriarty v Brookes (1834).
Case Example: C v Eisenhower (1984)
Facts: The defendant shot the victim with an air gun, causing pellets to rupture blood vessels in the victim's eye, creating internal bleeding and bruising.
Held: Because there was no break in the skin and no external bleeding, this did not constitute a wound, despite being a serious injury. It could, however, amount to GBH.
Key principle: This illustrates an important point - a wound is defined by its nature (a break in the skin), not by its seriousness. A minor cut causing external bleeding is technically a wound, while serious internal injuries may not be.
Inflict
The verb "inflict" in section 20 has been interpreted to simply mean "cause". In R v Burstow (1997), the House of Lords confirmed that "inflict" does not require the application of direct force. This means GBH can be inflicted even where the defendant does not physically touch the victim - for example, where the defendant's actions cause the victim to injure themselves.
Grievous bodily harm
Grievous bodily harm means really serious harm. This definition comes from DPP v Smith (1961). The harm must be of a significant nature, such as:
- Long-term or permanent injury
- Injury requiring extensive medical treatment
- Broken bones or organ damage
- Severe disfigurement
However, case law has extended the concept of GBH beyond just the most obviously serious injuries:
Extended Concepts of GBH
Vulnerable victims: In R v Bollom (2004), a 17-month-old baby suffered various bruises and abrasions. The court held that when assessing whether harm amounts to GBH, the vulnerability of the victim must be taken into account. Injuries that might be relatively minor for a healthy adult could constitute really serious harm for a particularly young, old, or vulnerable victim.
Multiple injuries: In R v Brown and Stratton (1997), the victim sustained multiple injuries including a broken nose, lost three teeth, facial swelling and lacerations, and concussion. The court held that multiple actual bodily harm injuries, when taken together, can amount to GBH.
Psychiatric injury: R v Burstow (1997) confirmed that GBH can include psychiatric injury. The defendant engaged in a campaign of harassment against the victim, causing her to suffer a severe depressive illness. The House of Lords held that serious psychiatric injury could constitute GBH, provided it is a recognised psychiatric condition, not merely fear or emotional distress. This was further refined in R v Dhaliwal (2006), which emphasised that the psychiatric injury must be a clinically recognisable illness.
Mens rea of section 20
The mens rea for section 20 is intention or recklessness as to causing some harm. Importantly, there is no requirement that the defendant intended or foresaw serious harm. They need only intend or be reckless as to the causing of some harm, even if relatively minor.
Case Example: R v Savage (1991)
Facts: The defendant threw a pint of beer over the victim in a pub. The glass slipped from her hand and cut the victim's wrist.
Held: The Court of Appeal held that it was sufficient that the defendant intended or could foresee that some harm would result. She did not need to intend or foresee the wounding or serious harm that actually occurred.
Significance: This creates what some see as an anomaly in the law - a defendant can be convicted of unlawfully wounding or inflicting GBH even though they only intended or foresaw minor harm. The offence is completed if serious harm results, regardless of what the defendant foresaw.
Section 18: Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent
The full statutory wording of section 18 states:
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony.
Section 18 is the most serious non-fatal offence against the person. It is an indictable-only offence, meaning it must be tried in the Crown Court, and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The difference in seriousness compared to section 20 is reflected in both the mode of trial and the much higher maximum sentence.
Actus reus of section 18
Despite section 18 using the verb "cause" and section 20 using "inflict", there is very little practical difference between the actus reus of the two offences. Both terms have been interpreted to mean essentially the same thing - that the defendant's acts brought about the wounding or GBH.
Therefore, the actus reus components are the same as for section 20:
- The act must be unlawful
- It must result in either a wound (break in the continuity of the skin with external bleeding) or GBH (really serious harm)
- The defendant's acts must cause the wound or GBH, applying normal causation principles
Mens rea of section 18
The mens rea is what distinguishes section 18 from section 20 and makes it the more serious offence. Section 18 requires one of two alternative mental states:
Option 1: Intent to cause grievous bodily harm
The defendant must have specific intent to cause GBH to any person. Unlike section 20, mere recklessness is not sufficient - the prosecution must prove the defendant had direct or oblique intent to cause really serious harm. This is a much higher threshold than section 20's requirement of merely intending or foreseeing some harm.
Option 2: Intent to resist or prevent lawful arrest
Alternatively, the offence can be committed where the defendant had intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension (arrest) or detention of any person. This could be themselves or another person. This alternative mens rea reflects the seriousness with which the law views violence used to evade justice.
For this alternative, the defendant must:
- Intend to resist or prevent a lawful arrest
- Wound or cause GBH in the course of doing so
- The arrest they were resisting must actually be lawful (if it was unlawful, they may have a defence)
The requirement of specific intent makes section 18 a crime of specific intent, meaning voluntary intoxication can be a defence if it prevented the defendant forming the necessary intent.
Key cases summary
Essential Cases for Non-Fatal Offences
R v Roberts (1971) - The victim jumped from a moving car to escape unwanted sexual advances and was injured. Established that: (1) escaping from physical danger is not a "daft" act that breaks the chain of causation; (2) for section 47 ABH, the mens rea for the assault or battery is sufficient, with no additional mens rea required for the harm caused.
Moriarty v Brookes (1834) - Victim suffered a cut to the skin under his eye in a pub dispute. Established that if the skin is broken and there is bleeding, this constitutes a wound.
C v Eisenhower (1984) - Air gun pellets caused bruising and rupturing of internal blood vessels in the victim's eye without breaking the skin. Held that a wound requires a break in the continuity of the whole skin - internal bleeding is not sufficient.
R v Bollom (2004) - A 17-month-old baby suffered various bruises and abrasions. Established that when assessing whether harm amounts to GBH, the vulnerability of the victim (such as very young or old age) must be considered. Injuries that might be minor for an adult could be really serious for a vulnerable victim.
R v Brown and Stratton (1997) - Victim sustained multiple injuries including broken nose, lost teeth, facial swelling and concussion. Held that multiple injuries that would individually amount to ABH can collectively constitute GBH.
R v Burstow (1997) - Defendant harassed the victim, causing her to suffer severe depressive illness. Established that: (1) "inflict" in section 20 simply means "cause"; (2) GBH can include serious psychiatric injury, provided it is a recognised psychiatric illness.
R v Savage (1991) and R v Parmenter (1991) - In Savage, defendant threw beer at victim and the glass slipped, cutting the victim's wrist. Established that for section 20, it is sufficient that the defendant intended or could foresee that some harm would result - they need not intend or foresee serious harm.
R v Chan-Fook (1994) - Confirmed that: (1) for section 47 ABH, all elements of assault or battery must be present; (2) ABH can include psychiatric injury, but it must be a recognised condition, not merely fear or emotional distress.
R v Miller (1954) - Established that actual bodily harm means hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but should not be trivial or wholly insignificant.
Smith v Chief Constable of Woking (1983) - A peeping tom looked through a window at night. The victim was frightened even though she was inside and he was outside. Held that for assault, the basis of the victim's fear can be that she does not know what the defendant will do next - apprehension of immediate violence can exist even with a physical barrier.
DPP v K (1990) - A boy put acid in a hand dryer, injuring the next user. Established that battery need not be direct - the application of force can be indirect through setting up a mechanism.
DPP v Smith (1961) - Established the definition of grievous bodily harm as "really serious harm", such as long-term or permanent injury or injury requiring extensive treatment.
R v Dhaliwal (2006) - Further refined the law on psychiatric injury as GBH, emphasising it must be a clinically recognised psychiatric illness.
Evaluation: Problems with the OAPA 1861
The Law Commission has identified numerous problems with the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in its report Reform of Offences Against the Person (Law Com No. 361). Key criticisms include:
Outdated language
The Act uses archaic Victorian language such as "whosoever" and "grievous bodily harm" which is difficult for modern juries to understand. Terms like "maliciously" have had to be interpreted by courts and actually mean something different from their ordinary meaning.
Inconsistent mental elements
The mens rea requirements are illogical. For section 47 ABH and section 20, defendants can be convicted of causing serious harm even when they only intended or foresaw minor harm. This seems unjust and disproportionate.
Confusing structure
The hierarchy of offences is not clear from the statute itself. Section 47 appears later in the Act than sections 20 and 18, yet is actually less serious. The maximum sentences (5 years for both section 47 and section 20) do not reflect the supposed difference in seriousness between ABH and GBH.
Technical definitions
The technical definition of a wound (requiring a break in the skin) means that a minor cut is a wound while serious internal injuries are not. This creates anomalies where the label attached to the offence does not match the seriousness of the harm.
Piecemeal development
Because the Act is so old and unclear, courts have had to develop the law case by case, leading to complexity and technicality that makes the law difficult to understand and apply consistently.
Despite these identified problems, Parliament has not yet enacted comprehensive reform of these offences. The OAPA 1861 remains in force, and these offences continue to be prosecuted under its provisions.
Exam technique guidance
Structured Approach to Scenario Questions
When answering scenario questions on non-fatal offences:
Identify the offence: State which specific offence you are considering (e.g., "The first issue is whether David has committed battery").
State the source: Note that it is a common law offence (for assault/battery) or identify the statutory provision (e.g., "This offence is found in section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861").
Explain the elements: Set out the actus reus and mens rea requirements, using case authority to support your explanation of each element.
Apply to the facts: Take each element in turn and apply it to the scenario, explaining whether it is satisfied on the facts given. Use case comparisons where helpful.
Conclude: State whether the offence has been committed based on your analysis.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
For section 47 ABH, remember to address all three parts of the actus reus: the assault or battery, the causation link, and the resulting harm. Many students forget the first two and focus only on whether ABH was caused.
For wounding and GBH offences, clearly distinguish between sections 20 and 18, particularly in relation to the mens rea. This is often the key issue in determining which offence has been committed.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember
-
Section 47 ABH has three actus reus components: assault/battery + causation + actual bodily harm. The mens rea is only for the assault/battery, not the harm caused.
-
ABH means hurt or injury interfering with health or comfort. It can include psychiatric injury and cutting hair, but must not be trivial.
-
Wounding requires a break in the continuity of the whole skin with external bleeding - internal injuries, however serious, are not wounds.
-
GBH means really serious harm. It can include psychiatric injury, multiple ABHs together, and must account for victim vulnerability.
-
Section 20 requires mens rea of intending or being reckless as to causing some harm (not necessarily serious harm). Maximum sentence: 5 years.
-
Section 18 requires specific intent to cause GBH or intent to resist lawful arrest. It is indictable only with a maximum of life imprisonment, reflecting its greater seriousness.
-
The main difference between sections 20 and 18 is the mens rea - section 18 requires specific intent to cause GBH, while section 20 requires only intent or recklessness as to some harm.