R v Savage, Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699

Facts

  • The case joined two appeals: R v Savage and R v Parmenter, both concerning convictions for actual bodily harm (ABH) under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  • In Savage, the defendant threw a pint of beer over another woman; the glass slipped, broke, and caused a cut to the victim.
  • In Parmenter, a father, through rough handling, caused injuries to his infant son.
  • In both cases, the defendants asserted they did not foresee the extent or level of harm inflicted.

Issues

  1. Whether a conviction for ABH under section 47 requires that the defendant foresaw the actual harm caused.
  2. What degree of mens rea is required for offences under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  3. How the requirement of “maliciously” in the statute should be interpreted for ABH.

Decision

  • The House of Lords ruled that the mens rea for common assault (intention or recklessness regarding the application of unlawful force) suffices for ABH under section 47, provided the actus reus of ABH occurs.
  • It is not necessary for the defendant to foresee the specific or actual harm produced; foresight of some harm is not a requirement.
  • The previous Court of Appeal decision, which required foresight of some harm for ABH, was overturned.
  • “Maliciously” under section 47 was held to require only intent or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force, not as to the specific harm.

Legal Principles

  • For ABH under section 47, it is sufficient to prove the defendant intended or was reckless as to the application of unlawful force; foresight of the resulting harm is not necessary.
  • “Maliciously” in this context signifies intention or recklessness as to the assault, not as to the precise harm caused.
  • The actus reus of ABH is any injury interfering with health or comfort that is more than minor or fleeting, which may include certain medically recognized psychological injuries.
  • The mens rea for grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 20 differs, requiring foresight of some harm, though not of its specific severity.
  • This case established a lower threshold for conviction for ABH and clarified the varying mental element requirements among offences against the person.

Conclusion

R v Savage, Parmenter clarified that for ABH under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the prosecution need only prove intent or recklessness as to the assault, not foresight of specific harm, firmly shaping the approach to offences against the person in English criminal law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal