R v Mowatt [1968]
Share
R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 revolved around the intent required for a charge under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). While a jury could consider a guilty verdict for the lesser offence under Section 20, the question was whether the judge erred by not emphasising the distinction in malicious intent between Section 18 (shooting or attempting to shoot, or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm) and Section 20 (inflicting bodily injury, with or without weapon).
The defendant and a friend encountered the victim late at night. The defendant knocked the victim unconscious while his friend stole money. When the victim returned, insisting on knowing the friend's whereabouts, the defendant claimed self-defence and violently attacked the victim. The defendant was charged with malicious wounding under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The court held that it was unnecessary for the judge to explicitly elaborate on the term "malicious". The defendant's actions demonstrated an intent to intentionally cause serious harm. The court, through Diplock LJ, clarified that foreseeing the exact gravity of harm described in Section 18 was not necessary. It sufficed that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to a person, even if of a minor nature.
The decision clarified that for an offence under Section 18, it is not essential for the accused to foresee the precise level of harm described in the section. The crucial element is the foreseeability that some physical harm, even if minor, might result from the defendant's actions. The defendant was found guilty of malicious wounding under Section 18 based on the understanding that he intended to cause some physical harm, even if the extent was not precisely foreseen.
In conclusion, the court's ruling indicates that the mens rea required for a Section 18 offence involves an awareness that the defendant's actions might lead to some physical harm to a person. This extends beyond the need to foresee the specific gravity of harm described in the Section.
The defendant and a friend encountered the victim late at night. The defendant knocked the victim unconscious while his friend stole money. When the victim returned, insisting on knowing the friend's whereabouts, the defendant claimed self-defence and violently attacked the victim. The defendant was charged with malicious wounding under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The court held that it was unnecessary for the judge to explicitly elaborate on the term "malicious". The defendant's actions demonstrated an intent to intentionally cause serious harm. The court, through Diplock LJ, clarified that foreseeing the exact gravity of harm described in Section 18 was not necessary. It sufficed that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to a person, even if of a minor nature.
The decision clarified that for an offence under Section 18, it is not essential for the accused to foresee the precise level of harm described in the section. The crucial element is the foreseeability that some physical harm, even if minor, might result from the defendant's actions. The defendant was found guilty of malicious wounding under Section 18 based on the understanding that he intended to cause some physical harm, even if the extent was not precisely foreseen.
In conclusion, the court's ruling indicates that the mens rea required for a Section 18 offence involves an awareness that the defendant's actions might lead to some physical harm to a person. This extends beyond the need to foresee the specific gravity of harm described in the Section.
