For the offence of wounding, it can be under Section 20 OAPA 1861 or Section 18 OAPA 1861. In Section 20, according to the legislation of UK government, it states “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence or shall be liable… to imprisonment for not more than 5 years.“ Whilst for Section 18, according to the UK government, it provides “Whosever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any GBH to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be liable… to imprisonment for life.”
Among the two definitions, the word of “maliciously wounding” amounted to break in …show more content…
Both boys were wearing cricket pads for protection. The defendant had suggested wearing crash helmets, but none could be found. The defendant fired a shot that hit the victim’s in the eye. The held said that ‘maliciously’ for the purposes of s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 meant actual intention or recklessness as to whether a particular type of harm might be done, thus it would be sufficient that only slight harm had been foreseen.
In Section 18, the actus reus has been also discussed in question 1d and the meaning of ‘wound’ and ‘grievous bodily harm’ are no significant difference to Section 20.
For the mens rea of Section 18 OAPA 1861, it is either the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm or the defendant intended to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person. For the wounding part to the victim, it is necessary to prove that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm, intended to wound does not form a part of the mens
Among the two definitions, the word of “maliciously wounding” amounted to break in …show more content…
Both boys were wearing cricket pads for protection. The defendant had suggested wearing crash helmets, but none could be found. The defendant fired a shot that hit the victim’s in the eye. The held said that ‘maliciously’ for the purposes of s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 meant actual intention or recklessness as to whether a particular type of harm might be done, thus it would be sufficient that only slight harm had been foreseen.
In Section 18, the actus reus has been also discussed in question 1d and the meaning of ‘wound’ and ‘grievous bodily harm’ are no significant difference to Section 20.
For the mens rea of Section 18 OAPA 1861, it is either the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm or the defendant intended to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of any person. For the wounding part to the victim, it is necessary to prove that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm, intended to wound does not form a part of the mens