Word Count is 1799
Firstly, I will deal with Matt’s criminal liability.
We have to take into account both S20 Malicious Wounding or GBH and S18 Wounding or
causing GBH with intent. S 20’s Actus Reus is D unlawfully wounded or inflicted GBH to the
V. The mens rea is D maliciously (intended or was reckless) as to causing some harm (i.e.
need not intend or foresee wounding or GBH), foresight of some harm intention or
recklessness. The mens rea for this offence was established by Savage: Permenter [1992].
Although Matt does pass the test for recklessness, he also passes the S18 test for intention.
The Actus Reus for s18 causing GBH with intent is D unlawfully wounded or caused GBH to
the victim. The Mens Rea is that D intended to cause GBH, resist arrest, prevent lawful
apprehension of any person.
Therefore, we can charge him with this. The test for intention here is completed through his
oblique intention as using Belfon [1976], recklessness is not sufficient enough to prove that
a S18 offence has been committed. It is clear that his intention was to harm Sandee due to
the force being so great that it caused her skin to break and result in an open wound.
Furthermore, he would’ve seen that his action posed a certain risk that GBH would have
occurred. Therefore, due to intention being found and not just relying on recklessness which
would have passed s20, he can be charged with a s18 offence which is far more serious.
However, due to S18 being a crime of specific intent there can be the defence of
intoxication – was not in the right mind to have completed the mens rea test. The level of
intoxication has to be of a high extent for him to now have had the reasonable mens rea.
However, he wasn’t too drunk as he was able to want to put his dinner in the microwave. In
conclusion a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent and his intention through his anger
was to inflict wounding upon his wife. Thus, he can be charged with the S18 offence and
would be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment due to nature of the crime.
In the morning the situation escalated, and Matt smacked his daughter Chloe, aged 3, in
the face, leaving her with a black eye. This is subject to a S47 Assault occasioning ABH
offence. For this the Actus Reus is that D commits assault or batter which causes V to suffer
ABH. The Mens Rea is that D intended or was reckless as the assault or battery and need not
intend or foresee ABH). To decide whether Matt completed the recklessness test we can use
Cunningham which states that “did the defendant foresee the harm that in fact occurred,
might occur from his actions, but nevertheless continue regardless of the risk.” This is clearly
completed as it was reasonably foreseeable that his actions of an adult male on a toddler of
Chloe’s age would cause the damage that it did to her face. Considering his child was
showing possible symptoms of the ongoing Virus during the global pandemic he should not,
under any circumstances have reacted in the way he did. As there is no sufficient defence
for his actions, he would be charge with S47 offence on his 3-year-old daughter which is
subject to 5 years imprisonment.
A little while later after hearing the commotion, Matt’s neighbour knocks on the door
asking if everything’s okay. This makes Matt extremely angry and he confronts him outside
the door and shoves him aggressively down the concrete steps in which he falls and hits his
head. This is thus a S.20 offence of malicious wounding or GBH. The Actus Reus for this is
that D unlawfully wounded or inflicted GBH on to the V. The Mens Rea is that D maliciously
(intended or was reckless) as to causing some harm (i.e. need not intend or foresee wounding
or GBH). Here it was more than obvious that Matt intended the harm he caused by pushing
Mike down the steps. This is oblique intention looking at this through the objective test. This
Firstly, I will deal with Matt’s criminal liability.
We have to take into account both S20 Malicious Wounding or GBH and S18 Wounding or
causing GBH with intent. S 20’s Actus Reus is D unlawfully wounded or inflicted GBH to the
V. The mens rea is D maliciously (intended or was reckless) as to causing some harm (i.e.
need not intend or foresee wounding or GBH), foresight of some harm intention or
recklessness. The mens rea for this offence was established by Savage: Permenter [1992].
Although Matt does pass the test for recklessness, he also passes the S18 test for intention.
The Actus Reus for s18 causing GBH with intent is D unlawfully wounded or caused GBH to
the victim. The Mens Rea is that D intended to cause GBH, resist arrest, prevent lawful
apprehension of any person.
Therefore, we can charge him with this. The test for intention here is completed through his
oblique intention as using Belfon [1976], recklessness is not sufficient enough to prove that
a S18 offence has been committed. It is clear that his intention was to harm Sandee due to
the force being so great that it caused her skin to break and result in an open wound.
Furthermore, he would’ve seen that his action posed a certain risk that GBH would have
occurred. Therefore, due to intention being found and not just relying on recklessness which
would have passed s20, he can be charged with a s18 offence which is far more serious.
However, due to S18 being a crime of specific intent there can be the defence of
intoxication – was not in the right mind to have completed the mens rea test. The level of
intoxication has to be of a high extent for him to now have had the reasonable mens rea.
However, he wasn’t too drunk as he was able to want to put his dinner in the microwave. In
conclusion a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent and his intention through his anger
was to inflict wounding upon his wife. Thus, he can be charged with the S18 offence and
would be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment due to nature of the crime.
In the morning the situation escalated, and Matt smacked his daughter Chloe, aged 3, in
the face, leaving her with a black eye. This is subject to a S47 Assault occasioning ABH
offence. For this the Actus Reus is that D commits assault or batter which causes V to suffer
ABH. The Mens Rea is that D intended or was reckless as the assault or battery and need not
intend or foresee ABH). To decide whether Matt completed the recklessness test we can use
Cunningham which states that “did the defendant foresee the harm that in fact occurred,
might occur from his actions, but nevertheless continue regardless of the risk.” This is clearly
completed as it was reasonably foreseeable that his actions of an adult male on a toddler of
Chloe’s age would cause the damage that it did to her face. Considering his child was
showing possible symptoms of the ongoing Virus during the global pandemic he should not,
under any circumstances have reacted in the way he did. As there is no sufficient defence
for his actions, he would be charge with S47 offence on his 3-year-old daughter which is
subject to 5 years imprisonment.
A little while later after hearing the commotion, Matt’s neighbour knocks on the door
asking if everything’s okay. This makes Matt extremely angry and he confronts him outside
the door and shoves him aggressively down the concrete steps in which he falls and hits his
head. This is thus a S.20 offence of malicious wounding or GBH. The Actus Reus for this is
that D unlawfully wounded or inflicted GBH on to the V. The Mens Rea is that D maliciously
(intended or was reckless) as to causing some harm (i.e. need not intend or foresee wounding
or GBH). Here it was more than obvious that Matt intended the harm he caused by pushing
Mike down the steps. This is oblique intention looking at this through the objective test. This
