Offences against the Person Act 1861, S. 20: Footballing Injury
| Author | Alan Reed |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.3.201.64786 |
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s. 20:
Footballing Injury
R vBarnes [2005] EWCA Crim 3246, The Times (10 January 2005)
The appellant was convicted at Canterbury Crown Court, before Judge
Van Der Bijl and a jury, in October 2003 of inflicting grievous bodily
harm, contrary to s. 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for
which he was sentenced to a 240-hour community punishment order
and ordered to pay compensation of £2,609. The prosecution arose out
of a serious leg injury sustained by the victim during the course of an
amateur football match, which the prosecution contented was the result
of a late, unnecessary, reckless and high crushing tackle. The appellant,
claimed that the tackle was a fair, if hard challenge, in the form of a
sliding tackle in the course of play, and that any injury caused was
accidental.
The appeal raised an important question. Fundamentally, it addressed
when it was appropriate for criminal proceedings to be instituted after
an injury was caused to one player by another player in the course of a
sporting event. Surprisingly, there was little authoritative guidance from
appellate courts as to the legal position in that situation. The explanation
for that might be the fact that, until recently, prosecutions in those
circumstances were very rare.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
,the direction to the jury was inade-
quate, and that the conviction was unsafe. Criminal proceedings should
be brought against a player who injured another player in the course of
a sporting event only if his conduct was sufficiently grave to be properly
categorised as criminal. In determining whether conduct was criminal, it
was necessary to take into account the type of sport being played, the
level at which it was played, the nature of the act, the degree of force
used, the extent of the risk of injury and the offending player’s state of
mind. In such a situation the members of the jury would need to ask
themselves, among other questions, whether the conduct was such that
it could not be regarded as an instinctive reaction, error or misjudge-
ment in the heat of the game. An offence contrary to s. 20 of the 1861
Act also requires that the relevant harm be inflicted maliciously, either
with intention to cause some bodily harm or recklessness as to whether
such harm will be caused. In this context, ‘recklessly’ meant no more
than the defendant foresaw the risk that some bodily harm might result
from what he was going to do and yet, ignoring that risk, he went on to
commit the offending act.
C
OMMENTARY
Before considering in more detail the rationale behind the outcome in
the present case, it is instructive to consider the general principles and
201
To continue reading
Request your trial