R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421
Does a charge under s. 18 require that intent or reckless to the injuries caused be proven.
Facts
The defendant and a friend were out late at night, and came across the victim, at which point the defendant knocked the victim unconscious whilst the defendant’s friend proceeded to steal money from the victim. The victim then chased the friend but could not find him and so returned to the defendant, and insisted that he inform of the friend’s whereabouts. The defendant claimed to have felt endangered by the victim’s aggressive demeanour and so punched the victim, and proceeded to violently attack him. He was later charged with malicious wounding under s. 18 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Issues
Whilst a jury has the option of returning a guilty verdict for the lesser charge of s. 20 when contemplating a charge under s. 18, did a judge err in failing to emphasise the distinction of malicious intent between the two crimes.
Decision/Outcome
The Court deemed it irrelevant that the first instance judge had not explicitly elaborated on the word ‘malicious’ as the defendant’s actions could be taken as indicative of his intent to intentionally cause serious harm. As Diplock LJ commented:
‘It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the Section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.’ [(426)]
Subsequently the defendant was deemed guilty of an offence of wounding under s. 18.
Words: 279
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate in its account of the facts and the court’s reasoning in R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. The principle established — that for s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ‘maliciously’ requires only foresight of some physical harm, not necessarily the gravity of harm actually caused — remains good law and has been consistently followed, notably in R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 (HL), where the House of Lords expressly approved the Mowatt direction on the mental element for s.20.
However, readers should note a material inaccuracy in the article. The article states the defendant was charged under s.18, but the significance of the Mowatt direction on ‘maliciously’ relates specifically to s.20 (unlawful wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm). The mens rea for s.18 requires specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist arrest; it is the s.20 offence for which the lower foresight standard confirmed in Mowatt applies. The article conflates these two sections in a way that could mislead readers about which offence the Mowatt principle primarily governs. The Law Commission has at various points proposed reform of the 1861 Act, but no statutory reform has been enacted, and the Act and this case law remain in force.
