Legal Case Summary
Savage and Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699
The foreseeability of the level of physical harm and subjective intent required for the crime of grievous bodily harm.
Facts
In the first case, Ms. Savage threw beer over her husband’s ex-girlfriend in a bar. Yet, while doing so, the glass slipped out of her hand resulting in the victim’s wrist being cut. She claimed that she had no intention to harm her with the glass, yet was convicted for inflicting grievous bodily harm. In the second case, Mr. Parmenter had injured his new-born son, yet claimed that he had done so accidently as he had no experience with small babies. Mr. Parameter was also convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Issues
The issue pertained as to whether it was necessary to establish that the defendant intended the infliction of grievous bodily harm in order to establish the crime of malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm under s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Decision/Outcome
It is unnecessary that the accused should either have intended or have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause grievous bodily harm under s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. To satisfy the mens rea element of “maliciously,” it is not necessary to demonstrate that the defendant intended the level of harm inflicted. It is sufficient that the accused foresaw that some physical harm to some person, no matter of how minor a character envisaged, might result from the conduct. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Savage’s appeal and substituted Parmenter’s conviction to that of assault occasioning bodily harm.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699, in which the House of Lords confirmed that the mens rea for s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires only that the defendant foresaw that some physical harm to some person might result from their conduct, not that they foresaw grievous bodily harm specifically. This principle remains good law and continues to be applied by courts. The relevant statutory provisions in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 have not been amended in this respect. Proposed reforms to the Act, including those recommended by the Law Commission, have not been enacted. The article is therefore accurate as a statement of current English law, though students should be aware that reform of the 1861 Act has been a long-standing subject of academic and policy debate.
