R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter
For assault occasioning actual bodily harm, no mens rea is required as to the harm; for section 20, the defendant must foresee some harm, though not serious harm.
Facts
In two appeals heard together, Mrs Savage threw a glass of beer at a woman in a pub, and the glass slipped from her hand and broke, cutting the woman's wrist. She said she meant only to throw the beer, not the glass. Mr Parmenter caused serious injuries to his three month old baby by handling him roughly, and said that he did not realise that his actions would cause injury, because he had no experience of handling babies.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the prosecution need prove only the mens rea for the assault or battery, and need not prove that the defendant intended or foresaw any bodily harm. For maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20, the word maliciously requires that the defendant foresaw that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result, but not that he foresaw serious harm. Mrs Savage's conviction under section 47 was upheld, and Mr Parmenter could be convicted under section 47 if he had the mens rea for battery.
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 Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6
- R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212
- R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689
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.
