Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Savage

333 words (1 pages) Case Summary

3rd Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193

The mens rea requirements for wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 20.

Facts

The defendant was charged with unlawful and malicious wounding contrary to Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 20. The defendant had thrown a glass of beer over her husband’s former girlfriend. The glass broke and the victim was hurt by it. The defendant contended that she had not intended to throw the glass, just the beer.

Issues

At first instance the defendant was convicted of malicious wounding on the basis that the trial judge had failed to inform the jury that malice under Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was subjective. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction ((1990) 91 Cr App R 317) but found that an alternative conviction under Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 47 was possible. The House of Lords was asked to consider the mens rea requirements for the section 20 offence and whether an alternative verdict could be given if the section 20 offence was not made out.

Decision/Outcome

(1) It was held that a verdict of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to Offences Against the person Act 1861, s 47 was a possible alternative to a count alleging wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under Offences Against the person Act 1861, s 20. (2) A verdict under section 47 simply required proof of an assault and actual bodily harm caused by the assault. There was no separate mens rea element as to the bodily harm. (3) For a charge under section 20 to be made out, the defendant must intend or actually foresee that some physical harm would be caused to the victim. It did not matter how minor that harm might be.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles