Created by Yasmine King over 2 years ago
DPP v Smith Legal Principle- Definition, really serious harm that need not be life threatening R v Burstow- D followed his ex-girlfriend, telephoned her and wrote menacing letters. She suffered severe clinical depression as a result. Legal Principle- Harm can be psychiatricR v DIca- D infected two women with HIV. Knowing he was positive he did not warn themLegal Principle- Harm can be biologicalR v Brown and Stratton- D's attacked his father causing a broken nose, three broken teeth and a cut over the eyeLegal Principle- GBH can be multiple lesser injuries (accumulation)R v Bollom- GBH to a 17- month old child after causing bruises and abrasions all over the babyLegal Principle- Age and health can be considered when deciding whether the injuries are enough to be GBHR v Martin- D placed an iron bar over an exit and yelled 'Fire!'. Several people were badly injured in their attempt to escape Legal Principle- GBH can be committed indirectly
Section 20R v MowattLegal Principle- D only needs to have the mens rea to cause some harmR v MohanLegal Principle- Intention is where D makes a decision to bring about the prohibited consequenceR v CunninghamLegal Principle- D realises risk and takes it anywaySection 18R v BelfonLegal Principle- Intention to cause serious harmR v MohanLegal principle- Intention is where D makes a decision to bring about the prohibited consequenceR v WoolinLegal Principle - Is the consequence a virtual certainty? Did the defendant realise it was a virtual certainty?