Sunita Is To Blame For The Offences Against The Person Act

Sunita is liable for her actions against Barbara under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. By throwing the paperweight and stating “I am going to kill you!” Barbara is apprehending physical violence with a threat to kill , she is committing common assault, by intentionally leading “someone to expect the (non-consensual) application to his body of immediate unlawful force.’ (Venna). Under section 18 of the Act, “wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent”, Sunita is fulfilling the mens rea element with the ulterior intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Although, Sunita did not directly cut Barbara’s forehead; her reaction was foreseeable. The argument that Sunita caused Barbara’s cut can be satisfied by the fact that Sunita’s act was a substantial cause of Barbara’s injury. The chain of causation has not been broken, only an act so unusual can break the chain of causation. This is supported by R v. Roberts, if the victim's actions are a natural result of the defendant's actions, it does not matter whether …show more content…
However, Sunita does experience severe withdrawal symptoms which had the potential to endanger her life. So, could it be argued that Barbara taking away her drugs was with the ulterior intent to cause her grievous bodily harm? As, Barbara’s act was a substantial cause of Sunita’s injuries. It may be argued that there is no ulterior intent to cause grievous bodily harm because she does call an ambulance after taking pity on Sunita. The act of calling an ambulance could show that Barbara did not intend to cause serious harm to Sunita, only to cause pain and discomfort. As a result, Barbara may not be liable under section