Mens rea of 'maliciously' inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 OAPA 1861; R v Mowatt)
In a rugby club bar in Gloucester, Callum Reid shoves Owen Price hard during an argument. Callum realises that the shove might knock Owen over and leave him bruised, but it does not occur to him that Owen could be seriously hurt. Owen falls, strikes his head on a step and suffers a fractured skull, which is grievous bodily harm. Callum is charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Which of the following best states the mens rea the prosecution must prove under s.20?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: That Callum intended, or actually foresaw, that his act might cause some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
For s.20, the defendant must have intended or actually foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit minor, might result; foresight of serious harm is not required.
Mens rea of 'maliciously' inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 OAPA 1861; R v Mowatt)
Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires that the defendant 'unlawfully and maliciously' wound or inflict grievous bodily harm. In R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421, approved by the House of Lords in R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699, it was held that 'maliciously' requires the defendant to have intended, or actually foreseen, that his act might cause some physical harm to some person. It is unnecessary that he foresaw harm of the gravity described in the section, that is, a wound or serious injury. The test is subjective: Parmenter rejected the suggestion that it is enough that the defendant ought to have foreseen harm. Callum actually foresaw that Owen might be bruised, so he had the mens rea for s.20 even though he did not foresee the fractured skull.
Why A is wrong: Intention to cause grievous bodily harm is the mens rea for s.18, not s.20.
Why B is wrong: Foresight of a wound or serious harm is not required; foresight of some minor harm is enough.
Why C is wrong: The test is subjective: what Callum actually foresaw, not what a reasonable person would have foreseen.
Why E is wrong: That is the mens rea of battery, which suffices for s.47, but s.20 requires intention or foresight of some harm.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Subjective recklessness in criminal damage (R v G)
Which of the following best describes whether Priya was reckless as to the damage to the warehouse?
Mens rea for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861; R v Savage)
Which of the following best describes Hannah's liability under s.47?
Burglary where the intent to steal is formed after entry (Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b))
Which of the following best describes Marcus's liability for burglary?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.