S.18 OAPA
S.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Often referred to as wounding with intent.
S.18 is considered a much more serious offence than S.20. It has a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment, and it is an indictable offence.
Actus reus
- Wounding
- Causing GBH
The meaning for both of these are the same as for S.20. It has to be proven that the defendant
caused the wounding or GBH.
Mens rea
- Specific intent offence
- The defendant must be proved to have intended to:
- Do some GBH or
- Resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person.
Intention to wound is not enough for the mens rea for S.18.
R v Taylor – the victim was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound in the back.
Photos of the scratches show no more than surface scratches and it was impossible to tell the depth
of the wound. The medical evidence did not help in showing whether D had intended to cause really
serious injury. Judge directed that the jury must be sure that the prosecution has proved the
defendant had intended to cause GBH or wound.
D was convicted of S.18 offence. On appeal, COA quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge
had misdirected the jury. An intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of S.18 instead
the COA substituted a conviction for S.20.
Intent to do some GBH – maliciously adds nothing to the mens rea for S.18 where GBH is intended.
- S.18 is a specific intent crime and so intent must be proved.
- Recklessness is not enough.
Resisting arrest or prevention of arrest or detention
- Level of intention is lower.
- Prosecution must prove that the defendant had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest.
- If this leads to injury, then they only need to prove that D was reckless as to whether their
actions would cause a wound or injury.
R v Morrison – a police officer seized hold of D and told him that she was arresting him. D dived
through a window, dragging her with him as far as the window so that her face was badly cut by the
glass. COA held that as the word maliciously is used in respect of this part of the section it must have
the same meaning as Cunningham. Prosecution must prove that D either intended injury or realised
that there was a risk of injury and took that risk.
S.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Often referred to as wounding with intent.
S.18 is considered a much more serious offence than S.20. It has a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment, and it is an indictable offence.
Actus reus
- Wounding
- Causing GBH
The meaning for both of these are the same as for S.20. It has to be proven that the defendant
caused the wounding or GBH.
Mens rea
- Specific intent offence
- The defendant must be proved to have intended to:
- Do some GBH or
- Resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person.
Intention to wound is not enough for the mens rea for S.18.
R v Taylor – the victim was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound in the back.
Photos of the scratches show no more than surface scratches and it was impossible to tell the depth
of the wound. The medical evidence did not help in showing whether D had intended to cause really
serious injury. Judge directed that the jury must be sure that the prosecution has proved the
defendant had intended to cause GBH or wound.
D was convicted of S.18 offence. On appeal, COA quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge
had misdirected the jury. An intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of S.18 instead
the COA substituted a conviction for S.20.
Intent to do some GBH – maliciously adds nothing to the mens rea for S.18 where GBH is intended.
- S.18 is a specific intent crime and so intent must be proved.
- Recklessness is not enough.
Resisting arrest or prevention of arrest or detention
- Level of intention is lower.
- Prosecution must prove that the defendant had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest.
- If this leads to injury, then they only need to prove that D was reckless as to whether their
actions would cause a wound or injury.
R v Morrison – a police officer seized hold of D and told him that she was arresting him. D dived
through a window, dragging her with him as far as the window so that her face was badly cut by the
glass. COA held that as the word maliciously is used in respect of this part of the section it must have
the same meaning as Cunningham. Prosecution must prove that D either intended injury or realised
that there was a risk of injury and took that risk.
