## Introduction

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) sets out a graded set of non-fatal offences in England and Wales, from common assault to grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent. Each offence is built around two core elements: actus reus (what was done) and mens rea (state of mind). The Act works alongside common law principles and later statutes, and much of its detail has been shaped by case law.

This guide explains the main offences (assault, battery, section 47 ABH, section 20 GBH/wounding, and section 18 GBH with intent), clarifies the required mental elements, and highlights leading authorities. It also covers key defences and practical points used in charging decisions and court.

## What You’ll Learn

- The legal definitions of assault and battery
- What amounts to “actual bodily harm” under section 47
- The difference between section 20 (GBH/wounding) and section 18 (GBH with intent)
- How intention and recklessness operate across OAPA offences
- When psychiatric injury and disease transmission count as harm
- How “wounding” is defined and proved
- Core defences: self-defence, consent, automatism, intoxication, duress
- Practical steps for charge selection, evidence gathering, and jury directions

## Core Concepts

### Assault and Battery

Assault and battery are common law offences charged under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

- Assault: causing another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. No physical contact is required. Cases such as R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 and Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station [1983] Crim LR 323 show that “immediate” can include the near future and that words or silence can be enough in context.
- Battery: the application of unlawful force to another. The threshold for “force” is low; touching can suffice. Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 and R v Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331 confirm that even minor unlawful touching may be battery.

Mens rea for both is intention or recklessness as to causing the apprehension (assault) or the application of force (battery). Recklessness follows the Cunningham/Mowatt approach: foreseeing a risk and going on to take it (R v Venna [1976] QB 421).

Indirect force and omissions can also be relevant: DPP v K [1990] 1 All ER 331 (indirect application of force) and DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin) (liability where a created danger leads to injury).

### Section 47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Section 47 requires:

- Actus reus: an assault or battery that occasions (causes) actual bodily harm.
- Mens rea: intention or recklessness as to the assault or battery only. There is no need to foresee ABH itself (DPP v Savage; R v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699).

What is ABH?

- “Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort” of the victim and more than “transient or trifling” (R v Miller [1954] 2 QB 282).
- Includes psychiatric injury if it amounts to a recognised condition (R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689). Mere emotions (fear, distress) are not enough without clinical evidence.
- Temporary loss of consciousness is ABH (T v DPP [2003] EWHC 266).
- Cutting substantial hair can be ABH (DPP v Smith (Michael Ross) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin)).

Causation follows normal principles. The defendant is responsible if the injury is a reasonably foreseeable result of the assault or battery (R v Roberts [1971] 56 Cr App R 95). The “thin skull” rule applies (R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411).

### Section 20 Wounding or Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm

Section 20 covers unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH.

- Wounding: a break in the continuity of the whole skin (both layers). Internal bleeding without skin break is not a wound (JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331).
- GBH: “really serious harm” (DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290; R v Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230). Severity is judged in context; injuries to a child or elderly person may more readily amount to GBH (R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846).
- Psychiatric GBH is possible, and “inflict” does not require assault or battery (R v Burstow; R v Ireland [1998] AC 147).
- Disease transmission, such as reckless HIV transmission, can be GBH under section 20 (R v Dica [2004] QB 1257; R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706). Informed consent may affect liability.

Mens rea: “maliciously” means intention or recklessness as to causing some harm (not necessarily serious harm). It is enough that some injury was foreseen (R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421; Savage; Parmenter).

Maximum sentence: 5 years’ imprisonment on indictment.

### Section 18 Wounding or Causing GBH with Intent

Section 18 is the most serious non-fatal OAPA offence.

- Actus reus: causing GBH or wounding.
- Mens rea: intention to cause GBH, or intention to resist/prevent lawful arrest with at least recklessness as to causing some harm in the latter variant (R v Morrison [1989] 1 WLR 1453).

Key points:

- For the primary route, the prosecution must prove an intention to cause really serious harm. Recklessness is not enough. Oblique intent directions (e.g., R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82) may be relevant where serious harm was a virtually certain consequence and the defendant appreciated that.
- “Cause” is broad and includes indirect means (Burstow; Ireland).
- Where the jury cannot be sure of intent to cause GBH, section 20 is the proper fallback.

Maximum sentence: life imprisonment.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699

- Context: Thrown beer and dropped glass (Savage); rough handling of an infant causing fractures (Parmenter).
- Key point: For section 47 and section 20, the prosecution need not prove foresight of ABH/GBH. It is sufficient that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the initial assault (s47) or foresaw some harm (s20).
- Application: Charge selection should reflect the level of foresight and injury. Keep section 47 available where ABH resulted but only assault/battery mens rea is proved.

### JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331

- Context: Eye injury from an airgun pellet causing internal bleeding.
- Key point: A “wound” requires a break in the whole skin. Internal bleeding without skin break is not a wound.
- Application: If there is no skin break, consider GBH (if really serious) rather than wounding.

### R v Burstow; R v Ireland [1998] AC 147

- Context: Harassment and silent phone calls causing serious psychiatric injury.
- Key point: Serious psychiatric injury can be GBH. “Inflict” in section 20 does not require assault or battery; “cause” in section 18 is similarly broad.
- Application: Use expert evidence for psychiatric harm and consider section 20 or section 18 depending on intent.

### R v Dica [2004] QB 1257 and R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706

- Context: Sexual transmission of HIV.
- Key point: Reckless transmission of a serious disease can amount to section 20 GBH. Consent must be informed; non-disclosure undermines genuine consent.
- Application: Assess knowledge, disclosure, and medical evidence. Consider section 18 only if intent to cause serious harm can be proved.

### R v Morrison [1989] 1 WLR 1453

- Context: Struggle to avoid arrest causing severe injury to an officer.
- Key point: For section 18 under the “resist or prevent arrest” limb, intention to resist arrest plus recklessness as to causing some harm can suffice.
- Application: When injuries occur during resistance, check the arrest limb of section 18 before defaulting to section 20.

## Practical Applications

- Charge selection
  - Common assault/battery where there is apprehension or minor force with transient effects.
  - Section 47 where ABH results but only assault/battery mens rea is provable.
  - Section 20 where GBH or a wound is caused and the defendant foresaw some harm.
  - Section 18 only where there is clear intent to cause really serious harm, or the arrest limb applies.

- Evidence to prioritise
  - Medical evidence detailing injury severity; photographs and measurements for bruising/swelling.
  - Psychiatric reports for ABH/GBH where mental injury is alleged (diagnosis required).
  - For wounding, proof of skin breach (stitch records, clinician notes).
  - For disease transmission, virology evidence, expert opinion on causation, and clear records of disclosure/consent.

- Mens rea and directions
  - Recklessness: did the defendant foresee a risk of some harm (Mowatt/Cunningham)?
  - Section 18: consider oblique intent where serious harm was a virtual certainty and appreciated as such (Woollin).
  - Use proper fallback verdicts: s18 → s20 → s47 where appropriate.

- Causation and intervening acts
  - Apply Roberts for escape cases: the victim’s reaction breaks the chain only if “daft” or unforeseeable.
  - Apply Blaue (thin skull): you take your victim as you find them, including their beliefs or vulnerabilities.

- Defences and lawful force
  - Self-defence/defence of others: necessity and reasonableness (R v Palmer [1971] AC 814; Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s76).
  - Consent: valid in properly conducted sports, medical procedures, and some everyday contacts; not a defence to intentional harm causing ABH or worse in street fights (AG’s Ref (No 6 of 1980) [1981] QB 715), subject to limited categories (e.g., properly regulated sports). Consider Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and Wilson [1997] QB 47.
  - Automatism, insanity, intoxication, duress: apply standard rules (e.g., Majewski for basic/specific intent distinctions on intoxication).

- Sentencing touchpoints
  - Section 47 and section 20 carry up to 5 years on indictment; section 18 carries life. Harm and culpability drive the final outcome under current guidelines.
  - Victim personal statements can be important to assess harm.

## Summary Checklist

- Assault requires apprehension of immediate unlawful violence; battery requires unlawful force
- Section 47: assault or battery causing more than transient or trifling harm; no need to foresee ABH
- Section 20: GBH or a wound; defendant must intend or foresee some harm
- Section 18: intent to cause GBH (or resist arrest with recklessness as to some harm)
- Wounding = break in both layers of skin; internal bleeding alone is not a wound
- Psychiatric injury can amount to ABH/GBH if medically recognised
- Disease transmission can be section 20 or section 18 depending on intent and consent
- Consider self-defence, consent, automatism, intoxication, and duress
- Use proper fallback verdicts where intent for section 18 is not proved
- Secure medical and expert evidence early

## Quick Reference

| Offence                    | Section/Authority | Mens rea                                       | Max sentence | Key case(s)                              |
| -------------------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------ | ---------------------------------------- |
| Common assault/battery     | s39 CJA 1988      | Intent or recklessness                         | Summary only | Collins v Wilcock; R v Venna             |
| ABH                        | s47 OAPA 1861     | MR of assault/battery only                     | 5 years      | R v Miller; Savage; Chan-Fook            |
| GBH/wounding               | s20 OAPA 1861     | Intent or recklessness as to some harm         | 5 years      | DPP v Smith; Eisenhower; Parmenter       |
| GBH with intent            | s18 OAPA 1861     | Intention to cause GBH (or resist arrest limb) | Life         | R v Morrison; Woollin (intent direction) |
| Disease transmission (GBH) | s20/s18 OAPA 1861 | Recklessness or intent (consent relevant)      | 5 yrs/Life   | R v Dica; R v Konzani                    |

Offences Against the Person Act Guide