Legal Case Brief
JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331
Whether internal blood vessel damage suffices for a finding of wounding under s. 18.
Facts
The defendant, a minor, shot multiple rounds from an air gun at a group of people, of which one airgun pellet hit the victim, also a minor, in the face, which ruptured internal blood vessel’s near the victim’s eye, causing bruising and swelling.
Issues
Did the defendant’s actions amount to a wounding under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
Decision/Outcome
The Court found the defendant not guilty of wounding, determining that a charge under s. 18 required that there be a break in ‘the continuity of the skin’, that is the whole skin and not merely a scratch to the outer layer of the skin. Goff LJ, who delivered the leading judgment, stated that precedent was relatively clear on the matter, and further that:
‘It is not enough that there has been a rupturing of a blood vessel or vessels internally for there to be a wound under the statute because it is impossible for a court to conclude from that evidence alone that there has been a break in the continuity of the whole skin’ ([341]).
Subsequently, the appeal was upheld and the charge against the defendant lessened. This rule continues to be strictly applied in determining whether an injury is best described as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or wounding under s. 18. Thus, in cases where the skins remains intact, ABH or GBH are the only options for a charge.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case brief remains legally accurate. JJC v Eisenhower [1984] QB 331 continues to be good law and is still regularly cited as the leading authority on the definition of “wounding” under both s. 18 and s. 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The requirement that there must be a break in the continuity of the whole skin — not merely internal rupturing of blood vessels — remains the established test and has not been displaced by subsequent legislation or case law.
One minor point of clarification for readers: the article’s issue heading refers only to s. 18, but the principle established in Eisenhower applies equally to the s. 20 offence of unlawful and malicious wounding. The article’s closing observation — that where the skin remains intact, ABH (s. 47) or GBH (s. 20 or s. 18) are the appropriate charges rather than wounding — is also correct as a statement of current law. No material legislative or judicial developments have altered this position.
