R v Bollom
Whether injuries amount to grievous bodily harm should be judged taking into account the victim's age and health.
Facts
Mr Bollom was accused of causing bruising and abrasions to the arms, legs and body of his partner's 17 month old daughter. He was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He argued that bruising and abrasions of this kind could not amount to grievous bodily harm.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the injuries were capable of amounting to grievous bodily harm, taking into account the age and health of the victim. Grievous bodily harm means really serious harm, and the jury should consider the totality of the injuries and the effect on the particular victim. Injuries that might be less serious on a healthy adult might be really serious when inflicted on a young child or an elderly person.
Related cases on non-fatal offences against the person
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (Michael) [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1571
- JCC (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331
- Logdon v Director of Public Prosecutions [1976] Crim LR 121
- R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
- R v Constanza [1997] 2 Cr App R 492
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
