House of Lords
| Published date | 01 August 1992 |
| Date | 01 August 1992 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839205600306 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST
THE
PERSON-THE
MENTAL
ELEMENT
RVSavage;
DPP
vParmenter
The nature of the mental element required for the offences of unlawfully
and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault
occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to ss 20 and 47 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861, respectively, has been clarified in the two
appeals heard together, in R v Savage;
DPP
v Parmenter [1991] 4 All
ER
698.
In Savage the defendant was convicted of unlawful and malicious
wounding contrary to s 20. When throwing the contents of a glass of beer
over her victim she let go of the glass which broke and cut her victim. The
Court of Appeal quashed her conviction on the ground that the trial judge
should have directed the jury that the word 'maliciously' in s 20 included
arequirement that the defendant foresaw that some physical harm would
follow as a result of her unlawful action. The court substituted a verdict
of guilty of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47, holding
that for that offence the defendant did not have to be proved to have
foreseen actual bodily harm as a result of her actions. The defendant
appealed to the House of Lords against conviction.
In Parmenter the defendant caused injuries to his baby son. The issue
was whether he realised that the way he had handled the child would cause
bodily harm. He was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting
grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 after the trial judge had directed the
jury that he had the necessary mens rea if he should have foreseen that
some physical harm, albeit of a minor nature, might result. The Court of
Appeal quashed his conviction on the ground that the test of foreseeability
under s 20 was a subjective one whereby the accused could be convicted
only if he actually foresaw the risk of some physical harm. Preferring the
decision in R v Spratt [1990] 1 WLR 1073 to that of Savage (above) the
court refused to substitute a verdict of guilty of an assault occasioning
actual bodily harm contrary to s 47, holding that the mens rea required
for that offence included a requirement that the accused had foreseen the
risk of some bodily harm. The Crown appealed to the House of Lords
against this refusal.
In each case the Court of Appeal certified a number of questions for
the House of Lords.
Lord Ackner delivered the main judgment in the House of Lords and
the
other
Law Lords agreed with his conclusions. His Lordship dealt with
issues raised by the certified questions as follows:
1 Is a verdict of guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm a
permissible alternative verdict on a count alleging unlawful wounding
contrary to s 20?
286
To continue reading
Request your trial