Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met.

This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or incriminating nature. As the information is substantially true, the act of revealing the information may not be criminal in its own right nor amount to a civil law defamation; the crime is making demands in exchange for withholding it. English Law creates a much broader definition of blackmail, covering any unwarranted demands with menaces, whether involving revealing information or not.

Blackmail is similar to extortion. The difference is that extortion involves an underlying, independent criminal act, while blackmail does not.

English law

Under section21(1) of the Theft Act 1968 of English law, a person commits the offence:

if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

The Act uses the word “menaces”, which is considered wider in scope than “threat” and involves a warning of any consequences known to be considered unpleasant by the intended victim. This covers the spectrum from actual or threatened violence to the victim or others, through damage to property, to the disclosure of information.

Pretexts for blackmail have included the threat to reveal adultery or criminal acts. But whatever the nature of the menace, it must be direct. Any vague threat to cause “something bad” to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met, are not applicable under the law.

Taking hostile action directly does not constitute blackmail, regardless of the legality of the action. For instance, telling a man’s wife that he has committed adultery is legal, even if the man would rather pay money than have his wife learn of his adultery. Blackmail consists of making demands in exchange for not taking the action.

Lawful means

Debt collectors have been accused of blackmail, but those pursuing legal debts are generally able to justify their threats of repossession because, even though it may be unpleasant to the victim, this is a legitimate use of civil law remedies. However, there are limits: many jurisdictions do not allow a “claim of right” defence to blackmail. In other words, one cannot use blackmail to collect even a valid debt.

By contrast, those chasing illegal (and thus unenforceable) debts who back up their demands with the threat of bodily injury cannot avail themselves of the same defence. There will also be liability even though the debts are legally owed if the menaces are of a criminal nature, for instance of an assault or more serious violence or criminal damage.

The maximum sentence under the terms of the Act is 14 years imprisonment (s.21 Theft Act 1968); reflects the severity of the offence, which can destroy a person’s reputation, personal life and livelihood.

Defendants convicted of a criminal offence can often be punished with a prison sentence.

Therefore, it is highly advisable and in your own interests that you receive legal advice from a solicitor who is an expert in criminal law if you have been charged with a criminal offence relating to blackmail – i.e. speak to a specialist criminal solicitor.

Specialist criminal solicitors are very experienced in successfully defending criminal prosecutions because criminal law is their sole activity. They are likely to represent you better than a solicitor who does not have that experience or expertise – i.e. a general practice solicitor whose day-to-day activities might include family law and housing law as well as some criminal law.

Arrange an appointment to discuss your concerns about blackmail with a specialist criminal solicitor at the earliest opportunity by contacting your nearest London office.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who The Hell Blackmails Gay Men To Stay At A Bed-And-Breakfast? (queerty.com)
• Man admits £8m blackmail plot (independent.co.uk)

There are two offences: common assault and battery. A person commits the offence strictly known as assault or common assault if he intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. (It is submitted that “violence” in this context means any unlawful touching, though there is some debate over whether the touching must also be hostile).

Confusingly, the terms “assault” and “common assault” often encompass the separate offence of battery, even in statutory settings such as s 40(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Causing a person to apprehend violence can be committed by way of action or words: R v. Ireland [1997] AC 147. Of course, words can also mean that otherwise threatening actions are rendered not capable of being an assault, as in the case of Tuberville v. Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3, T. In that case, the plaintiff told the defendant (while putting his hand on his sword) that he would not stab him, because the circuit judge was visiting town for the local assizes. On that basis, the defendant was deemed to have known that he was not about to be injured, and it was held that no assault had been committed by the plaintiff (so as to justify the defendant’s allegedly pre-emptive strike).

The “immediacy” required has been the subject of some debate. The leading case, again, is R v. Ireland [1998] AC 147. The House of Lords held that the making of silent telephone calls could amount to an assault, if it caused the victim to believe that physical violence might be used against him in the immediate future. One example of “immediacy” adopted by the House in that case was that a man who said, “I will be at your door in a minute or two,” might (in the circumstances where those words amounted to a threat) be guilty of an assault.

A common assault is an assault that lacks any of the aggravating features which Parliament has deemed serious enough to deserve a higher penalty. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that common assault, like battery, is triable only in the magistrates court in England and Wales (unless it is linked to a more serious offence which is triable in the Crown Court). Additionally, if a Defendant has been charged on an indictment with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), or racially/religiously aggravated assault, then a jury in the Crown Court may acquit the Defendant of the more serious offence, but still convict of common assault if it finds common assault has been committed.

Defendants convicted of a criminal offence can often be punished with a prison sentence.

Therefore, it is highly advisable and in your own interests that you receive legal advice from a solicitor who is an expert in criminal law if you have been charged with a criminal offence relating to Common Assault and Battery – i.e. speak to a specialist criminal solicitor.

Specialist criminal solicitors are very experienced in successfully defending criminal prosecutions because criminal law is their sole activity. They are likely to represent you better than a solicitor who does not have that experience or expertise – i.e. a general practice solicitor whose day-to-day activities might include family law and housing law as well as some criminal law.

Arrange an appointment to discuss your concerns with a specialist criminal solicitor at the earliest opportunity by contacting your nearest London office.

In recent years, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has launched an aggressive campaign against benefit frauds and thefts using visual media using “No ifs, No buts” as a slogan to raise awareness.

If you are worried about being prosecuted for Benefit Fraud after reading this article and you would like to discuss your concerns in complete confidentiality please contact your nearest London office to arrange an appointment.

Prosecution may typically occur using the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or Theft Act 1978. New offences have recently been introduced and are becoming more common in relation to the Fraud Act 2006.

Types of fraud that are committed are where people claim they are living alone, but are living with other people and do not give information on them. Claims are also made from empty properties, or benefit claimants have not provided full details of all their income or capital.

However persons who wish to supply the DWP with material evidence of a fraud must do so at their own expense, e.g. the cost of postage.

Any suspicion of fraud can be sent to the DWP as well as one’s local council. The DWP as well as many of the UK’s councils have dedicated websites where information can be submitted to be investigated.

It is not only the DWP that investigate benefit fraud but also all UK councils investigate Housing and Council Tax Benefit Fraud which is often linked to most DWP frauds. Since the introduction of the Welfare Reform Act 2007, councils can now independently investigate a number of Social Security benefits.

The Department for Work and Pensions policy on unfounded allegations is, (quote): “Referrals will be checked against these records to ensure that where previous investigations found that the allegation was unfounded no action will be taken unless there is significant new information or a different allegation”.

All allegations are risk assessed based on the level of information and the detail contained in the allegation and are also assessed using the National Intelligence Model. The more information that is supplied then the greater the chance of the case being accepted for investigation and also the greater the chance of the “fraudster being caught”.

When someone is caught for benefit fraud there are three ‘sanctions’ that the DWP or the Council can apply.

These are ‘simple’ cautions, administrative penalties, and prosecution.

The main criteria for the offering of a caution is that the person has to have admitted that they have committed an offence.

Other than this criteria, there is no statutory framework regulating which sanction is used in disposal of a case. This is a matter of policy for the relevant authority. The Department for Work and Pensions has a national policy, each Local Authority will have its own policy which will set different criteria and financial guidelines.

The Administrative Penalty is effectively a fine and is set at 30% of the total amount overpaid to them. This figure is set in Section 115 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, there is no negotiation on this. The suspect does not have to admit their guilt to be offered an Administrative Penalty, however it should only be offered by the Department for Work and Pensions, or the Local Authority if they believe there is sufficient evidence for court proceedings to be considered if the offer is refused.

A Prosecution is brought when the value of the overpaid benefit is so great, or the period of the fraud is lengthy, or the person may have been in a position of trust or the fraud was very blatant. Any prosecution brought by the Department for Work and Pensions, or a Local Authority should have been subject to the Public Interest Test as set out in the Code of Practice for Crown Prosecutors.

Defendants convicted of a criminal offence can often be punished with a prison sentence.

Therefore, it is highly advisable and in your own interests that you receive legal advice from a solicitor who is an expert in criminal law if you have been charged with a criminal offence relating to Benefit Fraud – i.e. speak to a specialist criminal solicitor.

Specialist criminal solicitors are very experienced in successfully defending criminal prosecutions because criminal law is their sole activity. They are likely to represent you better than a solicitor who does not have that experience or expertise – i.e. a general practice solicitor whose day-to-day activities might include family law and housing law as well as some criminal law.

Arrange an appointment to discuss your concerns with a specialist criminal solicitor at the earliest opportunity by contacting your nearest London office.

Related articles by Zemanta

• General Election 2010: Tories say benefit cheats should lose state support for 3 years (telegraph.co.uk)
• Experian identifies more than £1bn in public sector savings (computing.co.uk)

If you are worried about being prosecuted for Burglary after reading this article and you would like to discuss your concerns in complete confidentiality please contact your nearest London office to arrange an appointment.

COMMON LAW DEFINITION

Defined by Sir Matthew Hale as

“…..The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not…..”

1. Breaking can be either actual, such as by forcing open a door, or constructive, such as by fraud or threats. Breaking does not require that anything be “broken” in terms of physical damage occurring. A person who has permission to enter part of a house, but not another part, commits a breaking and entering when they use any means to enter a room where they are not permitted, so long as the room was not open to enter.

2. Entering can involve either physical entry by a person or the insertion of an instrument with which to remove property. Insertion of a tool to gain entry may not constitute entering by itself. It is generally required at common law that entry occurs as a consequence of the breaking.

For example, if a wrongdoer partially opened a window by using a pry bar and then noticed an open door through which he entered the dwelling, there is no burglary at common law.

The use of the pry bar would not constitute an entry even if a portion of the prybar “entered” the residence. Under the instrumentality rule the use of an instrument to effect a breaking would not constitute an entry.

However, if any part of the perpetrator’s body entered the residence in an attempt to gain entry, the instrumentality rule did not apply. Thus, if the perpetrator uses the prybar to pry open the window and then used his hands to lift the partially opened window, an “entry” would have taken place when he grasped the bottom of the window with his hand.

3. House includes a temporarily unoccupied dwelling, but not a building used only occasionally as a habitation.

4. Night time is defined as hours between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise.

5. The most serious form of burglary was classed as felony when this definition was prevalent, and included larceny, a type of theft. This precludes licit break-ins whose intent cannot be for the commission of any crime, such as a forced entry to rescue a person from danger or to exercise a lawful arrest.

Occasionally this element is expressed as the intent to commit a felony “therein”. The use of the word “therein” adds nothing and certainly does not limit the scope of burglary to those wrongdoers who break and enter a dwelling intending to commit a felony on the premises. The situs of the felony does not matter, and burglary occurs if the wrongdoer intended to commit a felony inside at the time he broke and entered.

The common law elements of burglary often vary between jurisdictions. This common law definition has been expanded in most jurisdictions, such that the building need not be a dwelling or even a building in the conventional sense, physical breaking is not necessary, the entry does not need to occur at night, and the intent may be to commit any felony or theft.

The etymology originates from Anglo-Saxon or Old English, one of the Germanic languages. According to one textbook, “The word burglar comes from the two German words berg, meaning “house,” and laron, meaning “thief” (literally “house thief”).

Burglary is defined by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which created two variants:

“……A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm [or raping any person therein], or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.(section 9(1)(a))……”

“……A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building.(section 9(1)(b))……”

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

“Enters”

Although physical evidence of entry is not normally difficult to obtain, it can be difficult on occasions to decide whether an entry has occurred in law. In R v Collins, it was held that entry had to be “substantial” and “effective”. The issue arose in R v Brown 1985 71 Cr App R 15 in which the defendant had been found on the pavement outside a shop with the top half of his body through the broken window, sorting though property on display for sale; this was held by the Court of Appeal to constitute an effective entry, while regarding the use of the word “substantial” as unnecessarily wide.

It was ruled that the jury had been entitled to conclude that the entry had been effective. Furthermore, in R v Ryan 1996 160 JP 610, the defendant had been found partially within a building, having been trapped by a window, and argued that this was not a sufficient entry. However, he was convicted as it was held that a partial entry was sufficient and that it was irrelevant that he was due to circumstances incapable of stealing anything.

“Building or part of a building”

The Theft Act 1968 does not define a building, so this must be a matter of fact for the jury, however Section 9(3) specifically states that the term includes an “inhabited vehicle or vessel”; hence motor homes, caravans and houseboats are protected by the section even when temporarily unoccupied.

Burglary can also be committed in “part of a building” and in R v Walkington 1979 1 WLR 1169 the defendant had entered a large shop during trading hours but went behind a counter and stole money from a till. The court held that he had entered that part of the building normally reserved for staff as a trespasser and was therefore guilty of burglary.

“As a trespasser”

The essence of trespass is entering or remaining on another’s property without authority; a person having permission to enter property for one purpose who in fact enters for another purpose may become a trespasser, and in R v Jones and Smith, a defendant who had a general permission to enter his father’s home became a trespasser when he did so in order to steal a television set, because doing so was inconsistent with the general permission.

In recent years, the terms “distraction burglary”, “artifice burglary” and “burglary by trick” have been used in crime prevention circles when access to premises is granted as a result of some deception on the occupier, usually by a pretence that the burglar represents some body who might reasonably request access such as a water, gas or electricity supplier.

There is no separate legal definition of this variant.

“With intent”

The intention to commit an offence, being an essential element of burglary, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. For example, if entry is made to regain property which the defendant honestly believes he has a right to take, there is no intention to steal and the defendant is entitled to be acquitted. However, it has been held that a conditional intent to steal anything found to be of value is enough to satisfy this requirement.

Mens Rea

R v Collins is authority for the proposition that the defendant must at least be reckless as to whether his entry is a trespass. For the Section 9(1)(a) offence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required that the defendant intended to commit the offence specified as part of the burglary. In the Section 9(1)(b) offence, the mens rea is that of the offence committed, such that, for example, if grievous bodily harm is inflicted, recklessness will be sufficient to establish liability.

AGGRAVATED BURGLARY

Under section 10 of The Theft Act 1968, aggravated burglary is committed when a burglar enters and “at the time has with him a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence, or any explosive”.

“At the time”

• In R v O’Leary 1986 82 Cr App R 337, the defendant entered a house unarmed but picked up a kitchen knife once inside; he then used it to force the occupier to hand over property. It was held that this constituted aggravated burglary because the offence which was part of the enterprise had been committed while in possession of the weapon.
• In R v Kelly, 1992 The Times, December 2, the defendant had used a screwdriver to gain entry; once inside the premises, he was confronted by the occupiers and used the screwdriver as a weapon to force them to hand over a video recorder. It was held that the screwdriver became an offensive weapon when he formed an intention to use it for causing injury to the occupier at the time of the theft, and therefore he was guilty of aggravated burglary.

“Has with him”

In R v Kelt 1977 65 Cr App R 74 it was held that this phrase will normally mean mean “carrying”, and in R v Klass 162 JP 105, The Times, 17 December 1997 (CA) others had entered a building for criminal purposes while the defendant remained outside, but in possession of a scaffolding pole which had been used to break a window. This did not, in law, constitute an entry for the purposes of burglary. It was held that since Klass had not himself entered the building, he was guilty of burglary and not aggravated burglary.

Mens Rea

It is necessary to prove that the defendant was aware of his possession of a weapon to convict of aggravated burglary. In R v Russell 1984 Crim L R 425, the defendant was found in possession of a knife but had forgotten that he had it; it was held that he was not guilty of aggravated burglary. A plea that the defendant did not intend to use the weapon is not a defence to this charge (R v Stones 1989 1 WLR 156).

TRIAL and SENTENCE – BURGLARY

The maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years imprisonment if committed in a dwelling and 10 years otherwise. Section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 specifies a minimum 3 year prison sentence for third-time domestic burglary unless exceptional circumstances apply. Higher courts have consistently upheld lengthy custodial sentences for burglaries of dwellings; see, for example R v Brewster 1998 1 Cr App R (S) 181[30]

TRIAL and SENTENCE – AGGRAVATED BURGLARY

Aggravated burglary carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and is therefore triable only on indictment.

Scotland

Under Scots law in Scotland the crime of burglary is called theft by housebreaking. It does not include any other aspect of burglary. Housebreaking when combined with other crimes is considered acquisitive crime. It is a crime usually prosecuted under solemn procedure.

Defendants convicted of a criminal offence can often be punished with a prison sentence.

Therefore, it is highly advisable and in your own interests that you receive legal advice from a solicitor who is an expert in criminal law if you have been charged with a criminal offence relating to Burglary or Aggravated Burglary – i.e. a specialist criminal solicitor.

Specialist criminal solicitors are very experienced in successfully defending criminal prosecutions because criminal law is their sole day-to-day activity. They are likely to represent you better than a solicitor who does not have that experience or expertise – i.e. a general practice solicitor whose day-to-day activities might include family law and housing law as well as some criminal law.

Arrange an appointment to discuss your concerns with a specialist criminal solicitor at the earliest opportunity by contacting your nearest London office.

In England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, the offence is created by section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861:

“     47. Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude …     ”

It encompasses those assaults which result in substantial injuries, typically requiring a degree of medical treatment of the victim.

If you are worried about being prosecuted for Actually Bodily Harm (ABH) after reading this article and you would like to discuss your concerns in complete confidentiality please contact your nearest London office to arrange an appointment.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charging standards

The CPS has said that, by way of example, it considers the following injuries to be actual bodily harm and to be sufficiently serious that they could not be adequately reflected by a charge of common assault and ought normally to be prosecuted under section 47:

• The loss or breaking of a tooth or teeth
• Temporary loss of sensory function, including loss of consciousness
• Extensive or multiple bruising
• A displaced broken nose
• Minor fractures of bones
• Minor (but not superficial) cuts requiring medical treatment
• A recognised psychiatric disorder

Causing any of these injuries (by assault or battery) would constitute the actus reus of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The CPS has advised its prosecutors that grazes, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye should normally be prosecuted as common assault.

Mode of Trial

In England and Wales, assault occasioning actual bodily harm is triable either way.

Sentence

In England and Wales, a person guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.

Racially or religiously aggravated offence

In England and Wales, section 29(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

This law was changed in 2003 and can now carry a sentence of up to life imprisonment.

Defendants convicted of a criminal offence can often be punished with a prison sentence.

Therefore, it is highly advisable and in your own interests that you receive legal advice from a solicitor who is an expert in criminal law if you have been charged with a criminal offence relating to ABH – i.e. speak to a specialist criminal solicitor.

Specialist criminal solicitors are very experienced in successfully defending criminal prosecutions because criminal law is their sole activity. They are likely to represent you better than a solicitor who does not have that experience or expertise – i.e. a general practice solicitor whose day-to-day activities might include family law and housing law as well as some criminal law.

Arrange an appointment to discuss your concerns with a specialist criminal solicitor at the earliest opportunity by contacting your nearest London office.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Householders to be given new rights to defend themselves against intruders (guardian.co.uk)

SECTION 18 (as amended)

“………..Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for life………”

This section replaces section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1837, which in turn replaces section 12 of the Offences against the Person Act 1828, which in turn replaces section 1 of Lord Ellenborough’s Act (1803).

SECTION 20 (as amended)

“………Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years…….”

The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18.

For this reason the offence under section 18 is often referred to as “wounding with intent” or “causing grievous bodily harm with intent“. See Intention in English law for a discussion of the modern test to determine whether any particular consequence is intended.

If you are worried about being prosecuted for Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) after reading this article and you would like to discuss your concerns in complete confidentiality please contact your nearest London office to arrange an appointment.

THE OFFENCES

WOUND

This section is about the legal definition of ‘wound’. This is not a medical definition.

A wound is an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin. There must be a division of the whole skin and not merely a division of the cuticle or upper layer.

A single drop of blood is sufficient, but it must fall outside the body. A bruise or internal rupturing of blood vessels is not a wound and neither is a broken bone. Wounding does not imply the use of a weapon; a kick may be wounding.

GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

Grievous bodily harm means “really serious bodily harm“. However, “serious injury” can be sufficient for direction to the jury. It is for the trial judge to decide whether the word “really” needs to be used in his direction to the jury: R v. Janjua and Choudhury [1999] 1 Cr.App.R. 91, The Times, 8 May 1998, CA (in this case, as a knife with a blade at least 5 1/2 inches long had been used, it was not possible that something less than really serious harm was intended).

NON-PHYSICAL INJURY

Non-physical or psychiatric injury can be considered “bodily harm” whether “actual” or “grievous”, but there must be formal medical evidence to verify the injury. The original legislative intent was almost certainly restricted to physical injury because Parliament required “bodily” (i.e. harm to the skin, flesh and bones of the victim) rather than “mental” or “emotional” harm. After all, psychiatry was in its infancy in when the Offences against the Person Act was enshrined in 1861.

In modern times, the practice of statutory interpretation frequently refers to the actual intention of the draftsman as expressed in the words of the Act, but considered in the light of contemporary knowledge. Applying this approach, R v. Chan Fook (1994) 1 WLR 689 accepted that “bodily harm” includes “psychiatric injury”, but it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress or panic and nor does it include states of mind that are not evidence of some “identifiable clinical condition”.     ”

For example, during a three month period, a defendant who had a substantial record of making offensive telephone calls to women, harassed three women by making repeated silent or heavy breathing telephone calls to them at night. This caused his victims to suffer psychiatric illness. Similarly, another defendant could not accept the decision of a woman to terminate a relationship, so he harassed her over an eight month period by making silent and abusive telephone calls, distributed offensive cards in the street where she lived, appeared unnecessarily at her home and place of work, took surreptitious photographs of the victim and her family, and sent her a menacing letter. The victim was fearful of personal violence and was diagnosed as suffering from a severe depressive illness.

The best medical practice today accepts a link between the body and psychiatric injury, so the words “bodily harm” in sections 20 and 47 were capable of covering recognised psychiatric illnesses, such as an anxiety or a depressive disorder, which affect the central nervous system of the body. However, to qualify, those neuroses must be more than simple states of fear, or problems in coping with everyday life, which do not amount to psychiatric illnesses. On the significance in the use of the word “inflict” in section 20 as opposed to “cause” in section 18 (Burstow, above), “inflicting” GBH under section 20 could be committed even though no physical violence was applied directly or indirectly to the body of the victim. Further, neither offence requires that a common assault be committed (distinguish assault occasioning actual bodily harm).

The Law Commission stated its view that “the deliberate or reckless causing of disease should not be beyond the reach of the criminal law” and there is continuing debate over whether the transmission of HIV is covered as GBH or under sections 22 to 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

INFLICT and CAUSE

Inflict is usually taken to mean the same as causing (see causation), so shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre would “inflict” the injuries in the resulting panic (see R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54). In R v Sullivan (1981) CLR 46 a driver swerved towards a group of pedestrians intending to scare them, but lost control of the car and actually injured the pedestrians. As he had only foreseen the risk of non-physical harm, his liability was reduced to section 47 as an assault. But, in R v Wilson (1984) AC 242 a driver punched a pedestrian in the face. Lord Roskill stated: “In our opinion, grievous bodily harm may be inflicted … either where the accused has directly and violently “inflicted” it by assaulting the victim, or where the accused has “inflicted” it by doing something, intentionally, which, although it is not itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, does directly result in force being applied violently to the body of the victim, so that he suffers grievous bodily harm.”

MALICIOUSLY

In R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421 Lord Diplock stated:
“     In the offence under section 20 … the word “maliciously” does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.     ”

Therefore, the defendant must at least be reckless as to whether some harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm, is likely to be caused, (see R v Savage (1991) 1 AC 699) but a mere intention to assault is not enough (see R v Sullivan).
[edit] Specific intent

Section 18 has two separate mens rea requirements and is therefore an offence of specific rather than basic intent. R v Belfon (1976) 1 WLR 741 confirmed that references to mere foresight or recklessness that harm was likely to result are sufficient for the element “unlawfully and maliciously inflict/cause” for the basic intent in both sections 18 and 20 but insufficient for the specific element. The intention either to cause or to resist arrest must be proved subjectively, say, in the charge “malicious wounding with intent to cause GBH”. If this cannot be done, sections 20 and 47 are offences of basic intent and can be an alternative charge, and/or section 47 is a lesser included offence.

The Crown Prosecution Service provide examples of factors which may indicate specific intent; for example: “a repeated or planned attack; deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to cause injury, such as breaking a glass before an attack; making prior threats; and using an offensive weapon against, or kicking the victim’s head”.

CONSENT

Consent is only an allowed defence to either section if there is considered to be a good reason. This may include medical operations, sport, body modifications (even if carried out by someone who is not trained – see R v Wilson, which involved a husband branding his wife’s buttocks), and, occasionally, “horseplay”, as in R v Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1006, in which RAF officers set fire to one of their number inflicting severe burns. R v Brown (1993) 2 WLR 556 [1] however ruled that consensual sadomasochism is not legal.

MODE OF TRIAL

In England and Wales, the offence under section 18 is an indictable-only offence.

In England and Wales, the offence under section 20 is triable either way.[5]

SENTENCE

In England and Wales, an offence under section 18 is punishable with imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.

In England and Wales, a person guilty of an offence under section 20 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.

See the Crown Prosecution Service Sentencing Manual for case law on sentencing of section 18 (does not contain any guidance on 14-12-2008) and section 20

The following cases are relevant to section 20:

* R v. Robertson [1997] EWCA Crim 918 (16 April 1997), 1 Cr.App.R. (S.) 21
* R v. Byrne [1997] EWCA Crim 1174 (13 May 1997), 1 Cr.App.R. (S.) 105
* R v. McNellis [2000] 1 Cr.App.R. (S.) 481
* R v. Clare [2002] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 97
* R v. Foote [2005] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 5

In Northern Ireland, a person guilty of an offence under section 20 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years,[9] or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.[10]
[edit] Racially or religiously aggravated offence

In England and Wales, section 29(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated wounding or infliction of bodily harm. This is an aggravated version of the offence under section 20

Defendants convicted of a criminal offence can often be punished with a prison sentence.

Therefore, it is highly advisable and in your own interests that you receive legal advice from a solicitor who is an expert in criminal law if you have been charged with a criminal offence relating to GBH – i.e. speak to a specialist criminal solicitor.

Specialist criminal solicitors are very experienced in successfully defending criminal prosecutions because criminal law is their sole activity. They are likely to represent you better than a solicitor who does not have that experience or expertise – i.e. a general practice solicitor whose day-to-day activities might include family law and housing law as well as some criminal law.

Arrange an appointment to discuss your concerns with a specialist criminal solicitor at the earliest opportunity by contacting your nearest London office.
—————-