Section 18
This page includes directions for both GBH and wounding with intent where (1) the defence is self defence; (2) the only issue is intent; and (3) the only issue is whether the defendant was the attacker.
(1) Unlawfully caused grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (self defence)
Unlawfully
This means without any legal excuse. Self defence may amount to a legal excuse. I will direct you about self defence in a minute.
Caused
The prosecution case is that D** caused injury to both C** and C**by hitting them hard with **a piece of wood ripped from a fence. D** admits that he caused the injuries, but says that they were as a result of C** and C** being hit by **a baseball bat.
Grievous bodily harm
This means “really serious harm”. It is admitted that the injuries which C** and C** suffered were really serious harm or grievous bodily harm.
With intent to do him grievous bodily harm
This is disputed by the defendant. Before you can find the defendant guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do him grievous bodily harm you must be sure that, in relation to each count, and at the time when the injuries were caused, D** intended to cause really serious harm to C** and C** or foresaw that such harm would be caused.
You can only decide what the defendant's intention was or what he foresaw by considering all the relevant circumstances and in particular what he did and what he said about it.
If you are sure that at the material time D** recognised that serious harm would be virtually certain to result from his actions, then that is a fact from which you may find it easy to infer that he intended to do serious bodily harm even though he might not have had any desire to achieve that result.
The prosecution case is that these were deliberate, intentional blows and that anyone who hits another person **hard about the head with a piece of wood must have foreseen that really serious harm would be caused. D** denies that the blows were deliberate and says that C** and C** were hit by the baseball bat in the course of a struggle in which he was defending himself.
Self defence
What is the law concerning self defence? A person who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself. If that is the case he is acting in lawful self-defence, and is entitled to be found ‘Not Guilty’. It is for the prosecution to make you sure that the defendant was not acting in lawful self-defence. He does not have to prove anything.
A person only acts in lawful self-defence if in all the circumstances he believes that it is necessary for him to defend himself and if the amount of force that he uses in doing so is reasonable. So there are two main questions for you to answer:
1. Did the defendant honestly believe or may he honestly have believed that it was necessary to defend himself? A person who knows he does not need to resort to violence does not act in lawful self-defence. If you are sure that the defendant did not honestly believe that it was necessary to defend himself, then self-defence does not arise in this case and he is guilty. But if you decide that he was or may have been acting in that belief, you must consider the second question:
2. Taking the circumstances and the danger as the defendant honestly believed them to be, was the amount of force which he used reasonable? Force used in self-defence is unreasonable and unlawful if it is out of all proportion to the nature of the attack, or is in excess of what is really required of the defendant to defend himself.
A person who is defending himself cannot be expected in the heat of the moment to weigh precisely the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary. If you conclude that the defendant did no more than he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary to defend himself, you may think that would be strong evidence that the amount of force used by him was reasonable. If you are sure that the force used by the defendant was unreasonable, he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence and he is guilty; but if force used was or may have been reasonable, then he is not guilty.
(2) Unlawfully caused grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (only issue intent)
Unlawfully
This means without any legal excuse.
In this case, this would only arise if what D** did was lawful punishment of her daughter, C**. As a matter of law, **burning a child with a heated spoon cannot be lawful punishment. So, you do not have to consider this word.
Caused
It is not disputed that **placing the heated spoon against C**’s skin caused the injuries that C** suffered. So, again this is not a word which you need to consider.
Grievous bodily harm
This means “really serious harm”. It is admitted that the injuries, the **burns, which C** suffered were really serious harm or grievous bodily harm. So, again this is a phrase which you do not have to consider.
As I have said, these points are not in issue. The defendant has already pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm. The issue you that you have to consider is her intention.
With intent to cause grievous bodily harm
This is disputed by the defendant. D** denies that she intended to cause really serious harm. Before you can find her guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm you must be sure that when she **heated the spoon and placed it against C**’s skin she intended to cause really serious harm to C** or foresaw that such harm would be caused.
You can only decide what her intention or foresight was by considering all the relevant circumstances.
If you are sure that at the material time she recognised that really serious harm would be virtually certain to result from what she did, then that is a fact from which you may find it easy to infer that she intended to do really serious bodily harm even though she might not have had any desire to achieve that result.
So, the only question that you have to answer in relation to Count *, having regard to all the evidence and the directions which I give you, is
Are you sure that, when D** **heated the spoon and placed it against C**’s skin, she intended to cause really serious harm to C** or foresaw that such harm would be caused?
If the answer is “yes”, she is guilty of Count *. If the answer is “no”, she is not guilty of Count *.
(3) wounding with intent
(where the only issue is the identity of the defendant)
You can see what the prosecution have to prove by looking at the words on the indictment.
Unlawfully
This means without any legal excuse. No legal excuse has been advanced in this case, so you do not need to consider this.
maliciously
Maliciously adds nothing to this count. It is not a word which you need to consider.
wounded
That simply means breaking the skin. Any cut is a wound. The injuries caused to C**’s face and which we have seen in the photographs, our exhibit *, were wounds.
with intent to do her grievous bodily harm
Grievous bodily harm means “really serious harm”. The defence do not dispute that the injuries which C** suffered were really serious harm or grievous bodily harm. For a defendant to be guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm you must be sure that he intended to cause really serious harm or foresaw that such harm would be caused. You can decide what an attacker’s intention was or what he foresaw by considering all the relevant circumstances and in particular what he did or said.
The prosecution case is that D** hit C** over the head with a ***. ... D** accepts that someone committed the offence of wounding with intent, but says that it was not him. He says that ***.
So, the key question for you to answer in relation to Count *, having regard to all the evidence and the directions which I give you, is this
Are you sure that it was D** who hit C** with a ** and caused the injuries to her face?
If the answer is “yes”, the defendant is guilty of Count *. If the answer is “no”, he is not guilty of Count *.
back to criminal law back to home