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.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 as confirmed by the House of Lords. The legal principles stated remain good law. The mens rea requirement for s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 — that the defendant must subjectively foresee that some physical harm (however minor) would result — was affirmed and consolidated by the House of Lords in the conjoined appeal R v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699, which is worth reading alongside this case. The position on s 47 — that no separate mens rea as to the actual bodily harm is required beyond intention or recklessness as to the assault itself — was confirmed in R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 and remains settled law. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 remains in force in its relevant parts; reform proposals have been discussed periodically but no legislative change to these provisions has been enacted. This note remains accurate for current study purposes.
