Problem Question – Matt
Issue Rule Application Conclusion
Matt punches Discuss S20 malicious Section 18 offence A drunken intent
Sandee in the face wounding or GBH and which is causing is nevertheless an
leaving a cut S18 wounding or causing GBH with intent – intent and his
GBG with intent Intention test – intention through
Oblique intent in his anger was to
S20 this case. Using the inflict wounding
AR: force he did that upon his wife.
D unlawfully wounded was such to give her
or inflicted GBH to the an open wound
V. from just a punch,
he would’ve seen
MR: that his action
D maliciously (intended would’ve so a
or was reckless) as to certain risk that
causing some harm (i.e. GBH would have
need not intend or occurred.
foresee wounding or
GBH) Therefore due to
intention being
Foresight of some harm found and not just
intention or recklessness. relying on
recklessness which
Savage: Parmenter would have passed
[1992] established MR s20, he can be
for S.20 charged with a s18
offence which is far
Facts: caused injury to more serious.
his 3-month-old son
argued did not realise his Because s18 is a
actions would result in crime of specific
injury. intent there can be
the defence of
Held: HL foresight of intoxication – was
some harm is necessary not in the right mind
for a conviction under to have completed
S.20, substituted S.47 the mens rea test.
conviction The level of
intoxication has to
be of a high extent
S.18
for him to now have
AR:
had the reasonable
D unlawfully wounded
mens rea. However,
or caused GBH to the
he wasn’t too drunk
victim.
as he was able to
want to put his
, MR: dinner in the
D intended to cause microwave.
GBH, resist arrest,
prevent lawful
apprehension of any
person.
Intention has the same
meaning as for murder.
Moloney [1985] can
infer intention Woolin
[1999]
Higher standard than
S.20 – requires proof of
intention (recklessness
will not suffice Belfon
[1976])
Intent to wound not
sufficient Taylor [2009]
But ‘maliciously adds
nothing’ to intention to
resist arrest Mowatt
[1968]
Matt slaps his 3- S47 Assault occasioning ‘any hurt or injury Would be charged
year-old daughter ABH calculated to with S47 offence
in the face leaving AR: interfere with the on a 3 year old girl
a bruise D commits assault or health or comfort of with no defence
battery which causes V the victim’ Miller possible.
to suffer ABH. [1954]
MR: Need not be
D intended or was permanent but
reckless as to the assault ‘more than merely
or battery (need not transient and
intend or foresee ABH) trifling’ T v DPP
[2003]
Intention or recklessness
(subjective/Cunningham) Using the case of
as to assault or battery. Savage, Matt does
not need to show
No need to show that D that he saw that his
foresaw the actual bodily action would result
harm – Savage: in ABH. He knew
Parmenter [1992] that by smacking
her it would cause
Facts: threw beer over V he some harm, it
– glass left hand – broke doesn’t matter if he
Issue Rule Application Conclusion
Matt punches Discuss S20 malicious Section 18 offence A drunken intent
Sandee in the face wounding or GBH and which is causing is nevertheless an
leaving a cut S18 wounding or causing GBH with intent – intent and his
GBG with intent Intention test – intention through
Oblique intent in his anger was to
S20 this case. Using the inflict wounding
AR: force he did that upon his wife.
D unlawfully wounded was such to give her
or inflicted GBH to the an open wound
V. from just a punch,
he would’ve seen
MR: that his action
D maliciously (intended would’ve so a
or was reckless) as to certain risk that
causing some harm (i.e. GBH would have
need not intend or occurred.
foresee wounding or
GBH) Therefore due to
intention being
Foresight of some harm found and not just
intention or recklessness. relying on
recklessness which
Savage: Parmenter would have passed
[1992] established MR s20, he can be
for S.20 charged with a s18
offence which is far
Facts: caused injury to more serious.
his 3-month-old son
argued did not realise his Because s18 is a
actions would result in crime of specific
injury. intent there can be
the defence of
Held: HL foresight of intoxication – was
some harm is necessary not in the right mind
for a conviction under to have completed
S.20, substituted S.47 the mens rea test.
conviction The level of
intoxication has to
be of a high extent
S.18
for him to now have
AR:
had the reasonable
D unlawfully wounded
mens rea. However,
or caused GBH to the
he wasn’t too drunk
victim.
as he was able to
want to put his
, MR: dinner in the
D intended to cause microwave.
GBH, resist arrest,
prevent lawful
apprehension of any
person.
Intention has the same
meaning as for murder.
Moloney [1985] can
infer intention Woolin
[1999]
Higher standard than
S.20 – requires proof of
intention (recklessness
will not suffice Belfon
[1976])
Intent to wound not
sufficient Taylor [2009]
But ‘maliciously adds
nothing’ to intention to
resist arrest Mowatt
[1968]
Matt slaps his 3- S47 Assault occasioning ‘any hurt or injury Would be charged
year-old daughter ABH calculated to with S47 offence
in the face leaving AR: interfere with the on a 3 year old girl
a bruise D commits assault or health or comfort of with no defence
battery which causes V the victim’ Miller possible.
to suffer ABH. [1954]
MR: Need not be
D intended or was permanent but
reckless as to the assault ‘more than merely
or battery (need not transient and
intend or foresee ABH) trifling’ T v DPP
[2003]
Intention or recklessness
(subjective/Cunningham) Using the case of
as to assault or battery. Savage, Matt does
not need to show
No need to show that D that he saw that his
foresaw the actual bodily action would result
harm – Savage: in ABH. He knew
Parmenter [1992] that by smacking
her it would cause
Facts: threw beer over V he some harm, it
– glass left hand – broke doesn’t matter if he
