## 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.


R v Savage, Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699