Wounding With Intent and Malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm Essay

Wounding With Intent and Malicious Infliction of unsafe Bodily Harm or Wounding - Essay ExampleThis paper illustrates that be originator Stan did not intend to cause grievous tangible harm but only intended to instill fear in Helen, his psychogenic state is insufficient to establish the mens rea requirement for stabbing with intent. Malice, however, which is the required state of mind for venomous botheration of grievous bodily harm or affronting, can be inferred by the defendants need and is unrelated to his motive, according to the leading case of Re A (children) (conjoined twins) 2000 4 All ER 961. bit Stan claims that he did not intend to inflict bodily injuries, and his motive was to make her afraid rather than to woe her, general malice can be inferred by his act of throwing a bottle directly at Helen. Thus, the mens rea requirement for the lesser offenses of malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm or malicious stabbing is all that can be established from the fa cts. Depending on whether or not Helens injuries were a wound or were grievous under the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861 s.20, Stan may have committed a malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm or malicious wounding. The Act prohibits the unlawful and malicious wounding of another person (meaning the breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin, or the inner skin inwardly the cheek or lip) as well as the unlawful and malicious infliction of grievous, or serious, bodily harm (a jury question). If both a wound and grievous bodily harm exist, R v McCready 1978 1 WLR 1376 mandates that the correct charge is unlawful wounding. The bottle that Stan threw at Helen caused a deep foreshorten that required stitches. Thus the breaking of the skin requirement for unlawful wounding is clearly met. Grievous bodily harm may also be present since such a deep cut is arguably serious according to the plain meaning of the word, but this question does not need to be communic ate since the holding in McCready requires that the charge be unlawful wounding under s.20 if a wound is present. Thus, the abuse that Stan probably committed is malicious wounding.