Wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest (s.18 OAPA 1861)
PC Amira Hussain lawfully arrests Jordan Clarke for shoplifting outside a supermarket in Reading. Determined to get away, Jordan lashes out at her with a bunch of keys held in his fist, intending to break free. He realises he may injure her but does not intend to cause her serious harm. The keys break the skin of her cheek, causing a wound. Jordan is charged under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Which of the following best describes Jordan's liability under s.18?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: He is guilty, because he unlawfully and maliciously wounded PC Hussain with intent to resist or prevent his lawful apprehension.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Section 18 is committed by maliciously wounding or causing GBH with intent either to do GBH or to resist or prevent lawful apprehension; the two intents are alternatives.
Wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest (s.18 OAPA 1861)
Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is committed where a person unlawfully and maliciously, by any means, wounds or causes grievous bodily harm to any person either with intent to do some grievous bodily harm, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. The two intents are alternatives. Jordan's arrest was lawful, and his purpose in striking out was to break free, which is an intent to resist his lawful apprehension. A wound (a break in the continuity of the whole skin) is enough; it need not amount to grievous bodily harm. He acted 'maliciously' because he realised he might injure the officer. Jordan is therefore guilty under s.18 even though he did not intend serious harm.
Why B is wrong: Intention to cause grievous bodily harm is only one of the two alternative intents in s.18; intent to resist lawful arrest is the other.
Why C is wrong: Section 18 covers wounding as well as causing grievous bodily harm; a wound need not be serious.
Why D is wrong: Intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension is an element of the offence under s.18 itself.
Why E is wrong: Where the intent relied on is to resist arrest, the prosecution need not prove foresight of grievous bodily harm.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
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?
Mens rea of 'maliciously' inflicting grievous bodily harm (s.20 OAPA 1861; R v Mowatt)
Which of the following best states the mens rea the prosecution must prove under s.20?
Consent to actual bodily harm for sexual gratification (Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s.71)
Which of the following best describes whether Sam's consent prevents Elliot being guilty of the s.47 offence?
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.