Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Where a person is convicted on indictment of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, other than an offence for which the sentence falls to be imposed under section 227 or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court, if not precluded from sentencing an offender by its exercise of some other power, may impose a fine instead of or in addition ...
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (and derivative offences) Inflicting grievous bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm with intent (and derivative offences) [ 2 ] These crimes are usually grouped together in common law countries as a legacy of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 .
R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1991] [1] were conjoined final domestic appeals in English criminal law confirming that the mens rea (level and type of guilty intent) of malicious wounding or the heavily twinned statutory offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm will in all but very exceptional cases include that for the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Bodily harm is a legal term of art used in the definition of both statutory and common law offences in Australia, Canada, England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions. It is a synonym for injury or bodily injury and similar expressions, though it may be used with a precise and limited meaning in any given jurisdiction.
An assault which is aggravated by the scale of the injuries inflicted may be charged as offences causing "actual bodily harm" (ABH) or, in the severest cases, "grievous bodily harm" (GBH). Assault occasioning actual bodily harm This offence is created by section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
Pages in category "People convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm" The following 16 pages are in this category, out of 16 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
For a common assault charge, up to three years imprisonment is possible. [7] Outside the court house, the victims' relatives were outraged and began yelling abuse at the police and the Tomkins, who were led out under heavy police guard. Protesters waved placards declaring "One law for whites and one law for blacks – still" and "This is KKK ...
The court held that the defendant was liable in proportion to its market share. [13] They departed from traditional notions of pure cause and adopted a "risk based" approach to liability. The defendant was held liable because of the amount of risk it contributed to the occasioning of the harm. [13]