Criminal Law Case Study: Martha's Actions, Intent, and Liability

This case study examines a criminal law scenario where Martha, a homeless woman, attempts to steal food and, in the process, unintentionally injures William with a knife, leading to charges of battery and grievous bodily harm (GBH). The analysis delves into the legal principles of actus reus and mens rea, exploring whether Martha possessed the requisite criminal intent. The court applies the Offences against the Person Act 1861, focusing on unintentional GBH. The case considers the definition of battery, the presence of a wound, and the role of recklessness. The analysis references several legal precedents, including DPP v. Little, Haystead v DPP, R v. Ireland, R v. Caldwell, and others. Ultimately, the conclusion suggests Martha could be found liable for grievous hurt due to her actions, although her intent to cause serious harm is questioned, potentially leading to a conviction under Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
Issue:
 Whether Martha can be held guilty for causing the battery to William?
 Whether Martha can be held guilty of generating grievous bodily harm to William?
 Whether Martha caused the wrongful act with the intention of causing harm to
William?
 Whether Martha had requisite mens rea recognized under the law of crime while
committing the act?
 Whether the doctrine of actus reus is associated with the act of Martha?
Rule:
The court, in this case, applied the rule relating to unintentional grievous bodily harm
which is envisaged in Rule 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The section states
that a person who has caused a wound or grievous bodily harm to another person maliciously
or unlawfully can be held guilty of misdemeanor irrespective of the fact that he caused the
same with or without using a weapon or instrument. Further, provision regarding the presence
of criminal intent in causing an act has also been discussed in this case. Further, the provision
regarding the offence of battery under the English law has also been discussed in this case.
Analysis:
In his case, Martha was a homeless, poor, and desperate person. She, in fact, lost her
job and unable to arrange regular food. In spite of these hard days, she was unwilling to
commit any crime. But one day out of starvation, she decided to steal some food from
someone. With this intent, she went to the local market and hides in a dark street corner with
a knife in her hand. She was waiting there for a potential person from whom he can steal
some food. At that time, William, an old man, walked toward Martha with a big shopping

2CRIMINAL LAW
bag. Martha blocks his passage and jumps in front of him. She pointed the knife towards him
and asked him to give food. She further stated that she is desperately looking for food and she
will not harm him. She further stated that she might die if she did not get food. At the very
moment, when William was about to give Martha the shopping bag, a police car entered into
the alley and noticed the happening of such an incident. Sensing of some wrong is happening,
the police officer stopped the car and turned on the siren of the same. Seeing this, Martha
pushes William aside and started to run from that place. But in giving such a push to William,
she unintentionally wounds him with the knife in her hand. However, the nature of the wound
was not lethal but it caused a deep injury on William.
It can be seen from the fact of the case, that Martha unintentionally caused bodily
harm to William, which is grievous in nature. As per the provision of English Criminal Law,
the term grievous bodily injury refers to the offense of battery1. The battery is regarded as a
criminal offense that involves unlawful physical contract different from simple assault or
criminal assault, which refers to the act of creating uneasiness about such unlawful physical
contact. Therefore, it can be categorized as a misdemeanor or felony based on the
circumstances of each case. The definition of battery under common law refers to the offense
as any unlawful or unwanted touch by a person who is the aggressor to any other person. In
most cases, battery is administered by statutes depends on the law of separate jurisdictions.
Generally, the necessary requisites to consider an offense as battery is, there must be an
aggressive contact or touch made upon the victim who must have been instigated by the
aggressor with the full knowledge about the consequence of such offensive act, that it might
cause serious injury to the person upon whom it is applied. However, English law recognizes
the notion of Actus Reus and Mens Rea in order to recognize an offense as Battery. In the
1 Plummer, Jennifer M. "Criminal Law-Determining When, If Ever, Sex Offender Registration Applies to
Juvenile Defendants-Commonwealth v. Samuel S., 69 NE 3D 573 (Mass. 2017)." Suffolk J. Trial & App.
Advoc. 23 (2017): 213.

3CRIMINAL LAW
case of DPP v Little2, the court of law recognized battery as a statutory offense opposing the
provision of Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988, which states that common law
assault and battery are presumed to be considered as a summing up offense. In another case
of Haystead v DPP3, the court held that force could be applied through a controlled medium
by a person who has the power to control such medium through his actions. Therefore, it does
not require a direct imposition of corporal contact with the body of the victim. Therefore, the
court further held that to bring a charge of battery and assault under section 39 of the
Criminal Justice Act; it is not necessary to prove direct physical infliction upon the victim.
In R v. Ireland4, apprehension of violence in the mind of another person can be created by
words or actions. Words further include otherwise bullying actions that are incapable of being
an assault. In another case of the Tuberville v. Savage5, the plaintiff assured the defendant
while holding a sword assured that he would not stab the plaintiff because the circuit judge of
local assizes is in town. The defendant trusted his word, apprehended that he was not about to
be injured. The court held that the plaintiff’s action was inadequate to put a reasonable person
in fear of immediate violence which is alleged by the defendant in this case. The court held
that there is no intention of the plaintiff to do the abovementioned act which is necessary to
constitute an assault. However, it is a factor to be considered by the prosecution to prove the
case that fear was in the victim’s mind and therefore, its source of the apprehension is
irrelevant and conduct along with the words could constitute an assault.
However, Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 further states about
the provisions relating to grievous bodily injury that has been unlawfully caused by one
person over another6. Further, section 20 of the Act applies to an unlawful hurting, malicious
2 DPP v. Little [1992] 1 QB 645, 95 Cr App R 28
3 Haystead v DPP [2000] 3 All ER 690
4 R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534
5 Tuberville v Savage ([1669] EWHC KB J25)
6 Stone, James. "Consent, Knowledge and Precaution: A Critical Analysis of the Criminalisation of the Reckless
Transmission of HIV and Other Serious Diseases." (2017).

4CRIMINAL LAW
hurting, or imposing grievous bodily harm. One of the most important factors that need to be
satisfied to constitute an offense under this section is the presence of a wound. In the case,
Rex v Wood and M'Mahon7, the court held that a wound is referred to as an wound that
disruptions the endurance of the skin. In Reg v M'Loughlin8, the court held that to constitute a
wound for grievous bodily harm; there must exist a separation of the entire skin and not just a
separation of the cuticle or upper layer. Further, in the case of JJC (a minor) v. Eisenhower9 ,
the court held that a serious bodily injury could take place in the form of a wound, if a single
drop of blood falls outer part of the body of a person after an injury. However, the court, in
the case of C (a minor) v Eisenhower10, held that an inner rupturing of blood vessels could
not be considered as a wound. In the case of R v Saunders11, the court held that it is for the
judge to decide whether the word "really" from the description of the offense of assault
causing grievous bodily harm should be used in a direction given to the jury while deciding
any case or not. Another important factor of assault is the relationship between the act of the
defendant and the result of the act. In the case of R v Jenkins12, the court held that, while
interpreting the word ‘inflict,’ it is not necessary to consider that the defendant had directly or
indirectly enforced physical force in causing the damage to the victim. It is sufficient that
their actions are sufficient enough to cause the injuries suffered by the victims. In another
case of R v Mandair13, the court held that the scope of the word 'cause' is broader and
definitely not smaller than the use of the word 'inflict' while defining grievous bodily harm.
In another case of R v Ireland14, it was held that an offense of inducing grievous bodily harm
under the provision of section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 can be done
even where no physical cruelty is applied either directly or even indirectly to the victim’s
7 Rex v Wood and M'Mahon (1830) 1 Mood CC 278
8 Reg v M'Loughlin (1838) 8 C & P 635
9 JJC (a minor) v. Eisenhower (1984) 78 Cr App R 48
10 C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 (1984) 78 Cr App R 48
11 R v Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230, [1985] LS Gaz R 1005
12 R v Jenkins [1984] AC 242,
13 R v Mandair [1994] 2 All ER 715
14 R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534

5CRIMINAL LAW
body. In R v Jenkins15, the court held that grievous bodily harm can happen even in those
cases where the accused has "inflicted" the injury to the victim by intentionally doing an act,
which is not a direct appliance of strength to the body of the victim but a result of the
appliance of power to the body of the victim in order to make him or her suffers the grievous
bodily harm. Another important factor of grievous bodily harm is the malicious intention of
the aggressor. In the case of R v Mowatt16, the court held that, under the provision of section
20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does signify and
applied upon the person who has caused such bodily injury to another that, his or her act is
not recognized a good act under the eyes of the law. In the case of R v Sullivan17, the court
held that a mere intent to scare is not satisfactory to constitute the requisite mens rea required
under section 20. Consent in causing bodily harm is another important factor in this regard. In
the case of R v Brown18, the court stated that consent while causing bodily injury cannot be a
defense, as in case of grievous bodily harm, this cannot be a ground for defense. Further,
section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, considered all forms of a felony as misdemeanors
and it will be tried according to the rules and procedure that applied in trials and pre-trial
hearings for misdemeanors19. However, the English Law concept of mens rea, that is guilty
mind in committing an actus reus, that is a guilty act has also been considered in this case20.
Further, the doctrine of recklessness is also recognized under English Law while dealing with
grievous bodily harm. The doctrine states that recklessness depends on the aggressor’s
foreseeability regarding the consequences of his or her but the aggressor without caring about
the same caused the act which is in the issue. In the case of R v Caldwell 21, the court held
15 R. V. Jenkins ((1869), 1 C. C. R. 187
16 R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421
17 R v Sullivan [1981] Crim LR 46, CA
18 R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19
19 Ormerod, David, and Karl Laird. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law. Oxford University Press,
2018.
20 Li, Mei, and Emily Ho. "Uprooting the Invasive Ivey: Reversing the Effect of Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd on
the Definition of Dishonest Appropriation in the English Law of Theft." Trinity CL Rev. 22 (2019): 189.
21 R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341

6CRIMINAL LAW
that the check of recklessness lies in the objective of the act. The court further held that
recklessness could be found in such cases, where a person performs an act which generates an
obvious risk for the demolition or destruction of property and the aggressor during that time
does not consider any possible risk associated or has been recognized with the act and
continued the same. Further, knowledge about the wrongful act is also another factor that the
court usually take into consideration.
Therefore, in the present case, Martha can be held liable for causing grievous hurt, as
she has unlawfully committed the act which caused serious hurt to William. Further, she had
full knowledge about the extent of the wrong of stealing and had knowledge that
apprehension of causing hurt to William can be held as an offense of common assault under
English Law. However, he can be exempted from the charge of mens rea as her mere
intention was to create an apprehension of danger with the knife so that William can give her
the bag. Therefore, it can be clearly stated that she is not guilty of intentionally causing
grievous bodily injury in the absence of mens rea. Nonetheless, applying the principle of JJC
(a minor) v. Eisenhower, the court can hold her guilty for inducing grievous bodily injury
under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Martha can be held responsible for triggering grievous hurt,
as she has unlawfully committed the act which caused serious hurt to William. Further, she
had full knowledge about the extent of the wrong of stealing and had knowledge that
apprehension of causing hurt to William can be held as an offense of common assault under
English Law.

7CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography:
Cases:
C (a minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 (1984) 78 Cr App R 48
DPP v. Little [1992] 1 QB 645, 95 Cr App R 28
Haystead v DPP [2000] 3 All ER 690
JJC (a minor) v. Eisenhower (1984) 78 Cr App R 48
R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341
R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534
R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534
R v Mandair [1994] 2 All ER 715
R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421
R v Saunders [1985] Crim LR 230, [1985] LS Gaz R 1005
R v Sullivan [1981] Crim LR 46, CA
R. V. Jenkins ((1869), 1 C. C. R. 187
R v Jenkins [1984] AC 242,
Reg v M'Loughlin (1838) 8 C & P 635
Rex v Wood and M'Mahon (1830) 1 Mood CC 278
Tuberville v Savage ([1669] EWHC KB J25)

8CRIMINAL LAW
Journals:
Li, Mei, and Emily Ho. "Uprooting the Invasive Ivey: Reversing the Effect of Ivey v Genting
Casinos Ltd on the Definition of Dishonest Appropriation in the English Law of
Theft." Trinity CL Rev. 22 (2019): 189.
Ormerod, David, and Karl Laird. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law. Oxford
University Press, 2018.
Plummer, Jennifer M. "Criminal Law-Determining When, If Ever, Sex Offender Registration
Applies to Juvenile Defendants-Commonwealth v. Samuel S., 69 NE 3D 573 (Mass.
2017)." Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 23, (2017): 213.
Stone, James. "Consent, Knowledge and Precaution: A Critical Analysis of the
Criminalisation of the Reckless Transmission of HIV and Other Serious Diseases." (2017).