sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Hey all,

I'm confused as to whether this scenario is ABH or GBH. D (lorry driver) is speeding away from the police. A container tumbles off the back of D's lorry and the police officer crashes into it and suffers serious injuries.

I would class this as GBH but apparently ABH equates to serious injuries as well but GBH is more serious. The scenario is vague so I'm not sure.


Thanks
0
reply
ROTL94
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
This might help
https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/ab...o-abg-gbh.html
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#3
Thanks I've read it, as D didn't intend to cause any harm, I guess he can't be held liable for GBH
0
reply
ROTL94
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by sally_1912)
Thanks I've read it, as D didn't intend to cause any harm, I guess he can't be held liable for GBH
Precisely, now you know which area of non fatal offences you're dealing with, you can look at your lecture notes from that area and get some cases that have relevant principles then you can apply them to your problem and then the job's a good'un
0
reply
Catherine1973
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
i'd suggest the speeding person may be reckless to the risk of causing some harm?

(and also are they also evading arrest? which is another form of section 18 isn't it?)
0
reply
ROTL94
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by Catherine1973)
i'd suggest the speeding person may be reckless to the risk of causing some harm?

(and also are they also evading arrest? which is another form of section 18 isn't it?)
'Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodilyharm to any person, or shoot at any person, or, by drawing a trigger or in any other manner attempt to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person, with intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some other 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 felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude for life . . '
Yes, but GBH requires intention, at least according to s18, so I'm not that sure it would apply here, as the D apparenlty didn't intend to harm the policeman
0
reply
Catherine1973
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
s20 doesn't need intent? (s18 does)

and s18 covers where someone intends to avoid arrest, (that one is a tricky one in terms of MR, i'd need to look at that again really, but it doesn't need intend to do serious harm, jjust intent to avoid arrest)
0
reply
ROTL94
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
(Original post by Catherine1973)
s20 doesn't need intent? (s18 does)

and s18 covers where someone intends to avoid arrest, (that one is a tricky one in terms of MR, i'd need to look at that again really, but it doesn't need intend to do serious harm, jjust intent to avoid arrest)
Yeah, section 20 which covers reckless GBH may apply here, and its worth noting that intent is determined by an evaluation of the desires/motives of the D so if OP can prove intent then it'd be a s18 offence right?
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
(Original post by sally_1912)
Hey all,

I'm confused as to whether this scenario is ABH or GBH. D (lorry driver) is speeding away from the police. A container tumbles off the back of D's lorry and the police officer crashes into it and suffers serious injuries.

I would class this as GBH but apparently ABH equates to serious injuries as well but GBH is more serious. The scenario is vague so I'm not sure.


Thanks
The most suitable offences would be:

s.20 of the 1861 Act (GBH) or s.18 of the 1861 Act (GBH with intent).

The lorry driver could (potentially) be charged with either:

s.20 requires a mens rea of recklessness as to some bodily injury occurring.

S.18 covers an intention to resist apprehension, providing there was malice as to grievous bodily harm. Malice in this context, means that the defendant must foresee the possibility of causing GBH. So the key issue to discuss is his foresight. Note the difference in the level of foresight required for s.18 and s.20.

In practice, you would charge with s.18 (as it carries the greater possible sentence), as the jury can return alternative verdicts of liability under s.20 or s.47(ABH) if they are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt regarding the s.18 elements.
Last edited by RV3112; 4 months ago
0
reply
kingyii1997
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
It is more likely to be S20. IMO, speeding away from the police is reckless.
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#11
(Original post by ROTL94)
Precisely, now you know which area of non fatal offences you're dealing with, you can look at your lecture notes from that area and get some cases that have relevant principles then you can apply them to your problem and then the job's a good'un
Thanks. However I couldn't talk too much about it because my essay covers liability for theft and constructive manslaughter with a 1000 word limit so it was tight
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by RV3112)
The most suitable offences would be:

s.20 of the 1861 Act (GBH) or s.18 of the 1861 Act (GBH with intent).

The lorry driver could (potentially) be charged with either:

s.20 requires a mens rea of recklessness as to some bodily injury occurring.

S.18 covers an intention to resist apprehension, providing there was malice as to grievous bodily harm. Malice in this context, means that the defendant must foresee the possibility of causing GBH. So the key issue to discuss is his foresight. Note the difference in the level of foresight required for s.18 and s.20.

In practice, you would charge with s.18 (as it carries the greater possible sentence), as the jury can return alternative verdicts of liability under s.20 or s.47(ABH) if they are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt regarding the s.18 elements.
Would it be bad if I couldn't really touch upon the topic of GBH because I literally had no more room left to talk about anything else? I have a word limit
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by sally_1912)
Would it be bad if I couldn't really touch upon the topic of GBH because I literally had no more room left to talk about anything else? I have a word limit
You would need to deal with s.18 at a minimum. The scenario you posted in the OP is clearly pushing you in that direction. If word count is a serious issue, you can simply consider the application of s.18, and then state in a single sentence that if the mens rea of s.18 cannot be satisfied, there could be liability under s.20. You don't need to consider ABH (s.47) if space is limited. Your facts clearly specify that the injuries were serious, this seems to rule out ABH (see e.g. case law which defines GBH such as R v Smith 1961).
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#14
(Original post by RV3112)
You would need to deal with s.18 at a minimum. The scenario you posted in the OP is clearly pushing you in that direction. If word count is a serious issue, you can simply consider the application of s.18, and then state in a single sentence that if the mens rea of s.18 cannot be satisfied, there could be liability under s.20. You don't need to consider ABH (s.47) if space is limited. Your facts clearly specify that the injuries were serious, this seems to rule out ABH (see e.g. case law which defines GBH such as R v Smith 1961).
That's bad then because I have 0 space to write about it and if I cut anything out then I'm cutting important details out. Would I at least pass if I still didn't mention GBH or is that a fail? I don't know why they have such a small word limit if there's so many issues.
Last edited by sally_1912; 4 months ago
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by sally_1912)
That's bad then because I have 0 space to write about it and if I cut anything out then I'm cutting important details out. Would I at least pass if I still didn't mention GBH or is that a fail? I don't know why they have such a small word limit if there's so many issues.
You won't fail automatically because you don't mention the issue, but you are essentially throwing away an entire portion of the marks. Exactly how many marks you are sacrificing, no-one can tell you without reviewing the whole question.

When tackling a question like this, your first step is always to identify all the issues first. Then plan your answer and split your word count accordingly depending on what issues you expect will require more words to resolve.

The best advice is to simply spend some time editing your existing answer to make it more concise. Word count is often wasted on overly long descriptions of case law (when one sentence summarising the ratio would usually suffice), excessive quotation (when paraphrasing would be fine), or verbiage.
0
reply
Catherine1973
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
Not a fail but if you don’t talk about one major issue then you probably are capped at a 2.2. We have to mention all major issues and most minor for a 2.1.
Cutting down the other sections is the best idea. They can’t mean you to go into that much detail if it’s 3 totally separate issues in 1000 word essay.
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#17
(Original post by RV3112)
You won't fail automatically because you don't mention the issue, but you are essentially throwing away an entire portion of the marks. Exactly how many marks you are sacrificing, no-one can tell you without reviewing the whole question.

When tackling a question like this, your first step is always to identify all the issues first. Then plan your answer and split your word count accordingly depending on what issues you expect will require more words to resolve.

The best advice is to simply spend some time editing your existing answer to make it more concise. Word count is often wasted on overly long descriptions of case law (when one sentence summarising the ratio would usually suffice), excessive quotation (when paraphrasing would be fine), or verbiage.
I did automatically know that the issues would include theft, GBH and manslaughter as soon as I read the scenario, however I cut as many words as I could and I wish I knew about summarising the ratio of a case was enough because my lecturers led us to believe that we had to summarise the facts of the case (in just one sentence but still). I'm going to try and cut down by this.
0
reply
sally_1912
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#18
(Original post by Catherine1973)
Not a fail but if you don’t talk about one major issue then you probably are capped at a 2.2. We have to mention all major issues and most minor for a 2.1.
Cutting down the other sections is the best idea. They can’t mean you to go into that much detail if it’s 3 totally separate issues in 1000 word essay.
I suppose that's true, however I won't know my actual grade. They're just going to tell us whether we've passed or failed in order to progress to 2nd year which is annoying because I won't have a % or anything to indicate how well I did or whether I got a 2:1 or 2:2
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (30)
15.54%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (57)
29.53%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (75)
38.86%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (26)
13.47%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (5)
2.59%

Watched Threads

View All